Your rights as a photographer.
Today, I stumbled across an article on Found Photography, titled ‘Your rights as a photographer‘. At first, I was intrigued, thinking that it would have something to do about copyright.
Instead, it turned out to be about photographing Amish people, who, according to the article, “The Amish don’t like to be photographed because it might cause them to be tempted by pride.“.
The article finishes with some tips about how you stand on your rights, if you come across Amish people in public places, and what your rights are regarding photographing them.
This reminded me of a different discussion I had a while ago, which regarded photographing people who didn’t want to be, also for religious reasons: Some Native tribes, for example, believe that a photograph of them means you steal their soul. It would, therefore, be less than wise to photograph them.
The rights, as described in the article, are as follows:
1. Almost anything you can see you can photograph.
If you can see it, you can take a picture of it. If you are standing on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. It is important to realize that taking a picture is different than publishing a photo, which leads to point number two.2. As long as you are not invading someone’s privacy, you can publish their photo without permission.
You can take someone’s picture in any public setting and publish it without consequence (even if it portrays the person in a negative way) as long as the photo isn’t “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” You can even publish photos if you took them on private property. While you may be punished for being on private property, there is no legal reason why you can’t publish the photo from prison!3. As long as you aren’t using someone’s likeness for a purely commercial purpose, you have the right to publish the photo.
You can use your photos of other people without their permission for an artistic or news purpose, but you can’t use them for a commercial purpose (such as an ad). You could sell a photo of a person without their permission, but you couldn’t use the photo in an ad saying the person endorses your product.
Whilst this is all correct, and really important to keep in mind to boot, there is a different consideration to keep in mind… Which brings me to the point of this article…
Respect in Photography
As a photographer, I have experienced feeling that I have touched people in a ways I wish hadn’t. An accidental invasion of privacy, so to speak, which made me feel as if I had commited the rudest form of sexual harassment - without even being aware of it.
In photography, One day, you can take a photograph of someone who is not wearing any clothes, but it will be okay. The next day, you can take a picture of someone who is fully dressed, even if you don’t see their face, and it is the worst of possibly imaginable sin. What is okay in one situation can be wrong in another.
Legality
Many countries in Europe have added the European Convention on Human Rights as part of their set of laws. This convention has something that is devastating to privacy, called Section 10.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include to receive and impart information without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” In practice, this is roughly the same as the 1st Amendment in the American Bill of Rights - the freedom to expression.
The conclusion drawn from the 1st amendment and Section 10 is that you can always take pictures. Even on private property, you have the right to photograph anything you can see.
Morality
Despite of something being legal, it doesn’t mean that you should, though.
Several minority cultures believe that taking a picture is the same as stealing somebodys soul. Taking a picture of a member of such a culture is inexcusable. Upon having taken the picture - as far as they are concerned - it is too late.
If you, as a photographer - especially as a professional photographer - make the mistake of taking a picture of a member of such a minority group, you have fucked up beyond forgivenness. Call it a breach of professional conduct, or a kick to the shins of common sense.
Other times, however, you meet people of whom you really couldn’t have known their aversion to photography. I have experienced taking a picture of a couple looking wonderfully in love. When they realised I took the picture, the male half of the couple came over and asked me for the film. Apparantly he was married, and didn’t want me to publish the picture. What was I to do? I decided to promise him to not use the image. I gave him my card, showed him my ID, and left it at that. He is a friend of mine to date.
In the grand scheme of things, I haven’t been a photographer for all that long. Situations like that will arise again, I am sure. And I am certain that modesty, along with a dose of appropriateness, will get me through those situations.
I have a few friends who work as wartime photographers. In the job, they see some of the most horrible things known to man. The pictures in the dailies are the mild versions of some of the pictures I have seen people come back with. And the pictures never go outside their photo albums. Why? Because some things don’t need to be shown. A man far wiser than me said to me once: “These things are not secret, but they are sacred, and should not be taken lightly”.
I know of no respected photographer who didn’t have respect for the subjects s/he photographs. And - even if you aren’t the best photographer in the world - showing respect will get you the respect you need to get a good start in the lion’s den that is Photography.
Do you like this article? Tell the world using one of these:
[
Digg
|
Facebook
| 
del.icio.us
| 
Stumble Upon ]
reddit_url='http://photocritic.org/photography-rights-vs-respect/'
Categories: PC articles
Tags:
This entry is © Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic.org, and was posted on Sunday, June 25th, 2006. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
here
#1 - June 25th, 2006 at 19:52
Thanks for posting this entry; it does a great job explaining something that we to easily forget: the person on the other side of the lens may be offended by having their picture taken. I linked to it; I think everyone who takes pictures of strangers should read it.
#2 - June 25th, 2006 at 21:12
Thanks! Good read!
#3 - June 26th, 2006 at 02:26
there is a really good article in popular photography this month about this. well, mostly about copyright, but also the rights photographers have. check it out next time you are in barnes and noble. there may be somthing on the popphoto website also, i havent checked.
#4 - June 26th, 2006 at 18:43
Thanks for mentioning my article. I agree that although the law gives you the right to take a photo, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should. I should also mention that I didn’t take photos of the Amish without their permission. It is just nice to know that I could have if I wanted too…
#5 - June 26th, 2006 at 21:53
I assume you are saying that the man that didn’t want you to take his picture was having an affair. Doesn’t his wife have some moral rights to know as well? Just because someone doesn’t want their picture taken, doesn’t always mean you shouldn’t.
Of course, I would never want to steel someone’s soul.
#6 - July 7th, 2006 at 03:13
Boy, is that a pantload!
The way photographers lose their rights is by implying to others that they have some sort of right to not have their photograph taken. Eventually, people begin to believe it. There is no ‘right to privacy’ in public in the USA, as you stated. While it is up to the individual photographer to decide if he or she wants to take a photograph of a particular scene or individual, asking for permission is asking for trouble. Take the photo. Do it. Do not apologize, do not ask for permission. Permission is for sucks. Uphold freedom, take the photo.
Did the ATM machine that just took your photo as you walked by ask your permission first? What about the police surveillance cameras on light poles and traffic signals? How about the various cameras in every convenience store, bank, and many other businesses? Just because they are automated, those who put them there are somehow off the hook? No. If a person is in public and I want to take a photo of them, I do. I will not stop doing it. I’m doing the heavy lifting of ensuring continuing freedom of the press and freedom of expression by doing so.
The Amish know perfectly well that they don’t have the right to demand that no one take their photo. They will turn their heads or turn their backs at the last moment to spoil the shot - that’s their right to do so. But their desire is not the same as a right - if I indulge them, it is me indulging them, not their right to demand it of me.
Take the photos. Liberty beckons. Get busy.
#7 - July 9th, 2006 at 15:47
I always thought of it as this:
No matter what somebodies beliefs or opinions, they do not own the light that has reflected off of them. If somebody thinks photography takes their soul, they are simply wrong, and while they may believe that, they don’t have claim the the light that has left them.
If you didn’t want the light to reflect, they should cover themselves in black felt.
#8 - October 8th, 2006 at 19:24
Greetings, I took some photos at Rock concerts in the mid to late 70’s and want to know if i published a book with the photos ,like a documentary of early classic rock shows used in an artistic way, would that be copyright infringment?
#9 - February 29th, 2008 at 12:43
I think it is not so much whether or not you take the picture as it is “what you will do with the picture” after you take it.
An ex-girlfriend has pictures of my son during their dating period. Now that he broke up with her, she is posting his pictures on MySpace in a malicious manner. I just thought I would point out the difference between the “taking” and the “use” of the picture. The use of my son’s pictures at this point is detrimental to his personal and professional image since this girl is not using his image to do anything but put a face to her detrimental comments.
Any thoughts on this related issue?
#10 - March 29th, 2008 at 02:18
Another link that may be useful for US based photographers in this freaky police-state world we currently find ourselves in is linked below:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
THis is a PDF you can print out and keep in your kit bag, and that way when the Local constable decides that you taking pictures from the sidewalk of one of the nice buildings downtown falls into his interpretation of “terrorist activities” you can have some legal legs to stand on…Don’t be cocky, just try to reason with the officer…they really have no legal ground to bother you if you are not breaking the law and are on public property.
Just thought I’d help spread the word…
#11 - July 21st, 2008 at 00:13
There’s more at issue here than legality, there’s the issue of respecting a person’s privacy.
I work at a large lingerie store, and one day at work, a man was standing outside taking photos of one of my co-workers. Everything in our store is copyrighted, so he can’t take photos inside the store, but we can’t do anything if he’s outside the doors.
But let me repeat the problem: he was taking photos of my co-worker without her permission. Every time she would move, he would move to follow her to get a better shot.
Legal? Probably? Ethical? NO! You might be within your legal rights to take someone’s photo, but morally you shouldn’t. Taking someone’s photo without their permission is annoying, and invasive, no matter what the law says. If you want to be a good photographer, respect peoples’ privacy.