None of those photographs looked ethically wrong to me . Most of the rules and laws are common sense sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of the photographed and think would you object .
Here (🇨🇦) there are not any direct legal issues that I’m aware of, that said I don’t take photos that I would consider inappropriate (you listed them well) and like you we don’t photograph children that we don’t know personally, and even then only for the family. For,others I like your approach of asking if it’s ok. Frankly, just having this conversation is a great thing; raises awareness and thoughtfulness. These days, that is always a good thing!
Thank you. I agree that it is a good thing to discuss about this. It gives more awarness of the things we need to think about when making street photographs.
From the standpoint of an American I am totally fine with all of your images. The laws here are about the expectation of privacy. This means that anyone in a public place can be photographed and the image can be printed. Situations where there is an expectation of privacy (for instance, photographing through a window into someone's house) are not allowed. None of your image are degrading or embarrassing to the individual, so they appear ethical to me.
Great review of the "supposed" ethics of photographing people in public. What I find most irritating about all this unethical photo talk, is the photographers who will judge you if they find something unethical to take a photo of, but you don't think it is. But what is where the fun comes out, when it comes to photographers judging other photohgraphers.
Thanks, common sense is probably the best approach when it comes to ethical aspects. Finland is very similar to Sweden and I can only echo what you did say. As for the photos, I do not find any of them to be unetchical. But the time they were viewed was too short to fully study each photo, especially the context. BTW, in Sweden I am allowed to stand in the public street and take a photo of someone's garden, house etc. I got the impression of your presentation that you are not allowed to take photos of private houses and so on. Keep up the great work🙂
You are right. Common sense is the way to go. Photographing someones yard or house is on the gray area. A general photograph of a neighbourhood is ok, but a photograph of a specific house or garden can be a violation of privacy. That happens if someone is at home. If the garden and house is empty then it can be ok to photograph. In Finland it is not legal to photograph or even look at with optical devices at a private place where you can sleep. That includes motorhomes, boats etc. Looking wth an optical devic includes cameras. You do not even have to take a photo and it might still be a violation of privacy.
@ForsgardPeter Thanks, the differences are always in the small details. I visit Finland from time to time so it seems good to be aware of the differences. Although I cannot figure out why I would shoot into a garden when doing street photography 😁
Thank you. Very well thought out opinions, respectful and wise. One question: If you sell a print, is that considered commercialization? It’s not broad commercialization, such as publication, but you are still earning money from it. Please comment, and once again, thanks very much!
That is a bit tricky. I would say yes, if it is a print. It is in a context of art. If it is a poster then it might not be ok to sell. Unfortunately there are no straight answers to this.
Thanks for this important topic. All your photos at the end of the video are good and not even close to unethical in my opinion. The person in them is relatively small and none of the situations is sensitive or somehow humiliating.
I like all of the images and would generally be happy to see them on non-commercial platforms. The only one I would be slightly wary of is image C, and this applies to anyone working who could be distracted by a photographer resulting in an accident e.g. someone working on a building site or driving heavy machinery. Sometimes people don't want to be photographed at work for a number of reasons.
None of the images are a problem to me. But it does make me a bit sad that we have to have those conversations in this day and age. Here we all are trying to do the right thing as responsible photographers, while there are thousands of cameras around us for all sorts of reasons and purposes. I know that is not the same, but unless you accept this new world we live in, you couldn't even dare to leave your own home anymore. I love looking at street photos; those that tell stories and sometimes show raw emotions. But if we all start taking unrecognisable pictures of peoples backsides then we would have nothing to show future generations what life was like on the street in 2024. Sorry about my ramble but hope you you get where I'm heading. BTW, love your channel Peter. Congrats on your 80,000.
This is a nuanced subject, so I'm always interested to hear the ideas of other photographers about it. From the legal perspective, you are allowed to photograph people in public, but you can't monetise it without a model release. From the personal perspective, it really depends on the kind of person you are. I don't particularly consider myself a street photographer if you want to pin me to a gendre, I view myself as a reportage photographer. So for me its about capturing the essence of places and events in time, rather than picking on specific individuals who might be in the street at the time. As the guiding principle, I try to use empathy, you know some people probably quite like getting in some photo and others may not, the photographer has maybe 1-2 seconds to make the call. But unless you are out at 3am on a weekday, people are generally going to be around. Occasionally I get quite good street shots, but its usually a fluke. There are others, however, who specialise in this gendre, and if they have the right kind of personality type, i.e. the ones who can 'get in peoples faces' without being taken too seriously, sometimes those results can be remarkable. Then there is the model photographer, who visualises the picture and hires the model to get in the scene (and gets the model release as part of the deal right). This can also yield very interesting results!
Love this video as I plan on starting to do some street photography. I don't think any of your images are unethical, and they are very good street images. Thank you for the video.
Thanks for addressing these ever-present issues. But what is this privilege for journalists that you mention? Do you mean there's an exception for newsworthy images (where public interest prevails over individual privacy rights)? Or is 'journalist' a protected category with additional rights over a private individual? In my country it isn't-there are ethical guidelines for the media but they don't have the force of laws. Anyone can be a journalist, in theory... E.g. a youtuber.
Journalistic works is a bit different an dthey do have more privileledges than non-journalists. Of course it an be on the grey area and they also have to respect the privacy.
Back in my street photography days ages ago, I never made a single image that could be taken as ridiculing of the subject. Never. An image might have a touch of humor, but gently. Where I live it's always been OK to photograph people in public spaces, with or without their consent. The images can be used personally, journalistically, or as art (prints, publication, shows). You can't, however, use them commercially in ads or greeting cards or marketing. That's only reasonable.
If there is no expectation of privacy and it is legal, one can make the image. What comes after that and what you want to do with an image then becomes a matter of personal or journalistic ethics. Sometimes you have to get the image in the moment and decide how or if it will be used later.
My personal opinion is that none of those photos are unethical at all. Indeed, that is what we see in everyday life in public, so it is difficult to say that we cannot take photos of these people. It become unethical if they are used in the wrong context or used to denigrate them.
I concur with the previous comments that your photos are completely ethical and even honorable. They’re beautifully thoughtful, heavy images with good weight. I agree with your minimalist editing style and practice that as well. Maybe I’m a bit of a purist in wanting the image to be as it was…good and bad elements short of simply cropping out something if it doesn’t alter the attention to the intended subject. I do wrestle with face and identity detection technology so readily capable of identifying person’s identity when posting images on website or here on TH-cam. It does make me pause whether we need to avoid face…unfortunately 😕. Thanks for this engaging video 👍
No problem at all with any of the pictures in the video. I've never had any issues shooting on the streets. The majority of my subjects weren't aware they were being photographed - and the rest just don't care. It's best to be as discreet as possible to capture life as it is - which also means getting permission is a non-starter. With regard to stock libraries/picture agencies - if the pictures have recognisable people then you can mark them for editorial use only - but the responsibility regarding use is with the person/company who publishes not with you as photographer.
Recently while on assignment (I'm a travel writer/photographer--just starting out), I took an incredible photo of a young woman with this sad, detached look on her face at an event. To me, the photo is incredible and evocative, but eithically, I don't think I could ever use it for this story. It would feel exploitative. Am I getting this wrong?
That is a tough question. It is all about what the story will be. Let's say that you are writing a story about how a certain place is depressing, you might not be able to use it since the photo might get interpeted wrong and you are refering that the person in the photo is depressed. If you write a story about how people where concentrated and really focused on the event it most likely is ok. It is all about the context the image is used. In the end of day it your call if you use it or not. You diceode based on your ethics, but as I said it is about the context.
I was asked nicely by a security guard in a mainline London railway station recently that I could not take photographs from the entrance steps leading into the concourse, as it was 'private property'. However I showed the guard the photos of the street scene opposite the station, of a London red bus and reflections in the building and the guard was ok about it, but said I couldn't photograph inside the station property. You just have to be aware and use common sense.
I didn’t see anything in your sample images that struck me as unethical. My rule (generally, as it can change due to situation) is not to take photographs of people that could be embarrassing or demeaning. Also, I avoid photographing children.
None of them seem unethical to me. Those photographs represent a viewer’s choice, yours, for a strong visual composition, and they don’t have any judgment on the elements, persons or objects, that form the composition.
I recently watched a couple of videos about New York City festivities, July 4th & Halloween street festivities. 99% of the photographs were of the crowds, the people. No rules in play anywhere.
That's the point. If I photograph a public event for example in Manhattan (I love taking pictures at Christmas, at the holiday of July 4th.... I have to go back to NY) that I take pictures, I keep them in my computer and I can't publish them on Flickr or similar? This damn privacy has ruined the way of life!
I cannot see any unethical images and would be happy to have taken them. Had any of those facing the camera were to object then it would be 'correct' procedure to delete them.
The reasoning behind permissions or payment for using an image for commercial purposes is obvious. The person in the photo may reasonably be viewed as endorsing the product. Example would be someone walking into an ice cream shop was photographed, and you then sold the image to the ice cream shop for their advertisement use. It can only be sold as art. Alas, this is the USA, and laws vary so much between countries. Peter is right about when a person asks that you do not photograph them -- move on to another place and delete photos of that subject. What is so funny is that the smartphone images taken by the millions have other people in them. Those images taken by someone on a phone most often are sent to someone else, then move on the next and the next and the next. Recall the days of the teenage girls on the old telephone lines --- talked for hours! Well fast forward to today, how many photos are sent? People afraid on being out in the world is the real problem. The phobia when unable to leave your home is a terrible thing. Peter, do you find any of my photos to be off putting in any way? Take care, Loren
Those photos does not create problem. But I.have a rule for my self: Good photography is just like good wine. Leave some time/years to pass, before you publish your photo
I agree that taking a little distance fron the images is a good practise. For me a year or two is a bit to long, but sometimes I go back to my really old images to see if I find something.
In my opinion, all of the photos are perfectly ethical: you are showing people in public spaces and none of the pics is dangerous, derogatory or ridiculous as for the image of the portrayed persons.
Ich werde niemals einen Menschen in seinem psychischen / körperlichen Schmerz fotografieren. Ich habe diese Momente und deren Bilder immer noch im Gedächtnis und vor Augen. Wenn es ginge würde ich sie löschen.
If the person is the subject then it needs to be more carefully handled. If the person is a small part of the subject and behaving normally then it's your choice. Your photos aren't unethical but the bloke sitting on a windowsill would be a no for me. As would any child unless the parent agreed.
Thanks Peter for highlighting this subject. I have no ethical issues with your images.
Thanks.
None of those photographs looked ethically wrong to me . Most of the rules and laws are common sense sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of the photographed and think would you object .
Thanks.
Here (🇨🇦) there are not any direct legal issues that I’m aware of, that said I don’t take photos that I would consider inappropriate (you listed them well) and like you we don’t photograph children that we don’t know personally, and even then only for the family. For,others I like your approach of asking if it’s ok. Frankly, just having this conversation is a great thing; raises awareness and thoughtfulness. These days, that is always a good thing!
Thank you. I agree that it is a good thing to discuss about this. It gives more awarness of the things we need to think about when making street photographs.
As a street photographer and a father I don’t take pics of kids unless you can not recognize them at all or of the homeless
Good policy.
Thanks Peter. I don't consider any of the sample images at the end to be unethical (by my standards).
Thanks for your comment.
From the standpoint of an American I am totally fine with all of your images. The laws here are about the expectation of privacy. This means that anyone in a public place can be photographed and the image can be printed. Situations where there is an expectation of privacy (for instance, photographing through a window into someone's house) are not allowed. None of your image are degrading or embarrassing to the individual, so they appear ethical to me.
Thanks.
I base my decision on whether I would like to be photographed in such a situation or not.
That is a good way of thinking about the situation: to photograph or not.
Great review of the "supposed" ethics of photographing people in public. What I find most irritating about all this unethical photo talk, is the photographers who will judge you if they find something unethical to take a photo of, but you don't think it is. But what is where the fun comes out, when it comes to photographers judging other photohgraphers.
Peter - A good review of a subject that I have rarely thought about - very useful.
Thank you.
Thanks, common sense is probably the best approach when it comes to ethical aspects. Finland is very similar to Sweden and I can only echo what you did say. As for the photos, I do not find any of them to be unetchical. But the time they were viewed was too short to fully study each photo, especially the context. BTW, in Sweden I am allowed to stand in the public street and take a photo of someone's garden, house etc. I got the impression of your presentation that you are not allowed to take photos of private houses and so on. Keep up the great work🙂
You are right. Common sense is the way to go. Photographing someones yard or house is on the gray area. A general photograph of a neighbourhood is ok, but a photograph of a specific house or garden can be a violation of privacy. That happens if someone is at home. If the garden and house is empty then it can be ok to photograph. In Finland it is not legal to photograph or even look at with optical devices at a private place where you can sleep. That includes motorhomes, boats etc. Looking wth an optical devic includes cameras. You do not even have to take a photo and it might still be a violation of privacy.
@ForsgardPeter Thanks, the differences are always in the small details. I visit Finland from time to time so it seems good to be aware of the differences. Although I cannot figure out why I would shoot into a garden when doing street photography 😁
Thank you. Very well thought out opinions, respectful and wise. One question: If you sell a print, is that considered commercialization? It’s not broad commercialization, such as publication, but you are still earning money from it. Please comment, and once again, thanks very much!
That is a bit tricky. I would say yes, if it is a print. It is in a context of art. If it is a poster then it might not be ok to sell. Unfortunately there are no straight answers to this.
@@ForsgardPeter Thanks. Makes sense.
Thanks for this important topic. All your photos at the end of the video are good and not even close to unethical in my opinion. The person in them is relatively small and none of the situations is sensitive or somehow humiliating.
Thanks.
I like all of the images and would generally be happy to see them on non-commercial platforms. The only one I would be slightly wary of is image C, and this applies to anyone working who could be distracted by a photographer resulting in an accident e.g. someone working on a building site or driving heavy machinery. Sometimes people don't want to be photographed at work for a number of reasons.
Good point.
None of the images are a problem to me. But it does make me a bit sad that we have to have those conversations in this day and age. Here we all are trying to do the right thing as responsible photographers, while there are thousands of cameras around us for all sorts of reasons and purposes. I know that is not the same, but unless you accept this new world we live in, you couldn't even dare to leave your own home anymore. I love looking at street photos; those that tell stories and sometimes show raw emotions. But if we all start taking unrecognisable pictures of peoples backsides then we would have nothing to show future generations what life was like on the street in 2024. Sorry about my ramble but hope you you get where I'm heading.
BTW, love your channel Peter. Congrats on your 80,000.
Good point. Thanks.
Thank you for this video, it's a concern for me. None of these photos are unethical
This is a nuanced subject, so I'm always interested to hear the ideas of other photographers about it. From the legal perspective, you are allowed to photograph people in public, but you can't monetise it without a model release. From the personal perspective, it really depends on the kind of person you are. I don't particularly consider myself a street photographer if you want to pin me to a gendre, I view myself as a reportage photographer. So for me its about capturing the essence of places and events in time, rather than picking on specific individuals who might be in the street at the time. As the guiding principle, I try to use empathy, you know some people probably quite like getting in some photo and others may not, the photographer has maybe 1-2 seconds to make the call. But unless you are out at 3am on a weekday, people are generally going to be around. Occasionally I get quite good street shots, but its usually a fluke. There are others, however, who specialise in this gendre, and if they have the right kind of personality type, i.e. the ones who can 'get in peoples faces' without being taken too seriously, sometimes those results can be remarkable. Then there is the model photographer, who visualises the picture and hires the model to get in the scene (and gets the model release as part of the deal right). This can also yield very interesting results!
Thanks for your well put words. These type of comments add so much value to a video. Thank you.
Love this video as I plan on starting to do some street photography. I don't think any of your images are unethical, and they are very good street images. Thank you for the video.
Thanks. Sounds good that you are srating street photography. I hope you the best and a lot's of keepers.
Thanks for addressing these ever-present issues. But what is this privilege for journalists that you mention? Do you mean there's an exception for newsworthy images (where public interest prevails over individual privacy rights)? Or is 'journalist' a protected category with additional rights over a private individual? In my country it isn't-there are ethical guidelines for the media but they don't have the force of laws. Anyone can be a journalist, in theory... E.g. a youtuber.
Journalistic works is a bit different an dthey do have more privileledges than non-journalists. Of course it an be on the grey area and they also have to respect the privacy.
Back in my street photography days ages ago, I never made a single image that could be taken as ridiculing of the subject. Never. An image might have a touch of humor, but gently. Where I live it's always been OK to photograph people in public spaces, with or without their consent. The images can be used personally, journalistically, or as art (prints, publication, shows). You can't, however, use them commercially in ads or greeting cards or marketing. That's only reasonable.
Thanks.
If there is no expectation of privacy and it is legal, one can make the image. What comes after that and what you want to do with an image then becomes a matter of personal or journalistic ethics. Sometimes you have to get the image in the moment and decide how or if it will be used later.
Very true.
My personal opinion is that none of those photos are unethical at all. Indeed, that is what we see in everyday life in public, so it is difficult to say that we cannot take photos of these people. It become unethical if they are used in the wrong context or used to denigrate them.
Yes, the point is how we use them and in what context.
I concur with the previous comments that your photos are completely ethical and even honorable. They’re beautifully thoughtful, heavy images with good weight. I agree with your minimalist editing style and practice that as well. Maybe I’m a bit of a purist in wanting the image to be as it was…good and bad elements short of simply cropping out something if it doesn’t alter the attention to the intended subject. I do wrestle with face and identity detection technology so readily capable of identifying person’s identity when posting images on website or here on TH-cam. It does make me pause whether we need to avoid face…unfortunately 😕. Thanks for this engaging video 👍
Thank you.
To me all are ethical if not used commercially.
No problem at all with any of the pictures in the video. I've never had any issues shooting on the streets. The majority of my subjects weren't aware they were being photographed - and the rest just don't care. It's best to be as discreet as possible to capture life as it is - which also means getting permission is a non-starter. With regard to stock libraries/picture agencies - if the pictures have recognisable people then you can mark them for editorial use only - but the responsibility regarding use is with the person/company who publishes not with you as photographer.
Thanks.
Recently while on assignment (I'm a travel writer/photographer--just starting out), I took an incredible photo of a young woman with this sad, detached look on her face at an event. To me, the photo is incredible and evocative, but eithically, I don't think I could ever use it for this story. It would feel exploitative. Am I getting this wrong?
That is a tough question. It is all about what the story will be. Let's say that you are writing a story about how a certain place is depressing, you might not be able to use it since the photo might get interpeted wrong and you are refering that the person in the photo is depressed. If you write a story about how people where concentrated and really focused on the event it most likely is ok. It is all about the context the image is used. In the end of day it your call if you use it or not. You diceode based on your ethics, but as I said it is about the context.
Thank you for reviewing such important point. I don’t think any of your photographs is somehow unethical.
I was asked nicely by a security guard in a mainline London railway station recently that I could not take photographs from the entrance steps leading into the concourse, as it was 'private property'. However I showed the guard the photos of the street scene opposite the station, of a London red bus and reflections in the building and the guard was ok about it, but said I couldn't photograph inside the station property. You just have to be aware and use common sense.
I find it odd that railway stations are considered private property.
I didn’t see anything in your sample images that struck me as unethical. My rule (generally, as it can change due to situation) is not to take photographs of people that could be embarrassing or demeaning. Also, I avoid photographing children.
That is a good rule.
Addendum: Of course I meant selling a print with a clear view of the person (who is however anonymous to the photographer.)
None of them seem unethical to me.
Those photographs represent a viewer’s choice, yours, for a strong visual composition, and they don’t have any judgment on the elements, persons or objects, that form the composition.
Thank you. I was going for neutral document of the scene.
Every picture is fine for me. 😊
Thanks.
I recently watched a couple of videos about New York City festivities, July 4th & Halloween street festivities. 99% of the photographs were of the crowds, the people. No rules in play anywhere.
Totally legal and ethical to photograph those public events. There might be some restrictions for publishing depending on the image.
That's the point. If I photograph a public event for example in Manhattan (I love taking pictures at Christmas, at the holiday of July 4th.... I have to go back to NY) that I take pictures, I keep them in my computer and I can't publish them on Flickr or similar? This damn privacy has ruined the way of life!
I cannot see any unethical images and would be happy to have taken them. Had any of those facing the camera were to object then it would be 'correct' procedure to delete them.
Thank you.
The reasoning behind permissions or payment for using an image for commercial purposes is obvious. The person in the photo may reasonably be viewed as endorsing the product. Example would be someone walking into an ice cream shop was photographed, and you then sold the image to the ice cream shop for their advertisement use. It can only be sold as art. Alas, this is the USA, and laws vary so much between countries. Peter is right about when a person asks that you do not photograph them -- move on to another place and delete photos of that subject. What is so funny is that the smartphone images taken by the millions have other people in them. Those images taken by someone on a phone most often are sent to someone else, then move on the next and the next and the next. Recall the days of the teenage girls on the old telephone lines --- talked for hours! Well fast forward to today, how many photos are sent? People afraid on being out in the world is the real problem. The phobia when unable to leave your home is a terrible thing. Peter, do you find any of my photos to be off putting in any way? Take care, Loren
Thanks. Very good points and it adds more info to the video.
Those photos does not create problem. But I.have a rule for my self: Good photography is just like good wine. Leave some time/years to pass, before you publish your photo
I agree that taking a little distance fron the images is a good practise. For me a year or two is a bit to long, but sometimes I go back to my really old images to see if I find something.
In my opinion, all of the photos are perfectly ethical: you are showing people in public spaces and none of the pics is dangerous, derogatory or ridiculous as for the image of the portrayed persons.
Thanks.
Ich werde niemals einen Menschen in seinem psychischen / körperlichen Schmerz fotografieren. Ich habe diese Momente und deren Bilder immer noch im Gedächtnis und vor Augen. Wenn es ginge würde ich sie löschen.
Danke Schön.
If the person is the subject then it needs to be more carefully handled.
If the person is a small part of the subject and behaving normally then it's your choice.
Your photos aren't unethical but the bloke sitting on a windowsill would be a no for me. As would any child unless the parent agreed.
Thanks.