"A faked portrait of my generation"

"Take the risk", thats absolute my opinion too and my behavior as a committed street photographer.
Maybe we should say, that without street photography there would be left a faked portrait of our society.
If I take a picture of a beggar, of young couples, businessmen, of all kind of peoples doing in public "unobserverd" all kind of things, I got unique documents of the time, the circumstances and the behavior of this people.
In the street one have naturally a more elusive kind of looking on people.
But looking at a picture give us the opportunity for a deeper view and the time to acertain the impression.
And to look at this photos has not only a voyeuristic aspect, but is a legitimate view from human beings on human beings.
So, street photographers, courage!

Comment posted by Martin Storz on February 23, 2007

I think its pretty evident of the paranoia that exists in the west about photography. Its this paranoia that really turns me off about living there. It seems that Asia is till much more accepting towards photography. Mr. Steele-Perkins would maybe have something to add to it about shooting in Tokyo, but as far as Seoul or Korea goes photography is still accepted. But I agree with the advice from Mr.Duclos, just shoot. Some laws are so stupid they dont deserve to be obeyed.

Comment posted by Rafal Pruszynski on February 23, 2007

January 2007 issue of Canadian magazine Photolife has an article on the topic by Frank White and Helga Wintal entitled "Privacy rights and candid photography: Are you skating on thin ice?" I could not find an on-line version, but for those interested, it is possible to order back issues from http://www.photolife.com. There are added complications to the whole Aubrey decision because Quebec has somewhat unique privacy legislation, although the judicial interpretation is indicative of the overall approach to privacy rights in Canada.

Comment posted by Fuerst on February 24, 2007

The law can be like a carpet bomb, indiscriminately killing everything in its path. It will never substitute responsible human judgment!

Comment posted by Philip on February 25, 2007

Its an interesting question this. Is the issue at core whether the photographer is making money out of 'street photography'? Because the advent of mobile phone photography and video and mass publication of these images on the internet makes this law almost impossible to enforce. I'm not making the comparison between a proffesional photojournalist and anyone holding a vehicle for recording an image but when major newspapers are calling on people to send in their pictures of events then the whole question of subject's consent becomes moot. no?
If this is the case then targetting proffesional photographers with such restrictions in an image crazed enviroment is unjust. I wonder how many written consents Cartier-Bresson would have had to collect, and how this would have affected his oeuvre.

Comment posted by Alek on February 26, 2007

The case of Erno Nussenzweig vs. photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia is more recent than the Canadian one you cite - link to an article by Phillip Gefter about it here:

http://tinyurl.com/26ckpf

diCorcia won, but I think Nussensweig is appealing? It's difficult because it puts in the hands of courts to judge the artistic merits of a photographers output - the case was won on the grounds that "Defendant diCorcia has demonstrated his general reputation as a photographic artist in the international artistic community." Scary, no?

Comment posted by f:lux on February 26, 2007

The legal status of street photography in Canada outside of Quebec is quite undecided. No other case I'm aware of has gone as far as the Quebec one did, and so there is no case law to look to. I suspect, though, with photography is a significant upswing through the digital revolution, this won't last for long.

Comment posted by Sean Galbraith on February 26, 2007

Shooting on the street in the west is becoming a nightmare. Both on a legal and personal level.

Los Angeles in particular is horrible. Everyone is incredibly paranoid and aggressive in their response. Perhaps it has to do with the prevalence of the Paparazzi in that town. If I had a nickel for every time someone has asked me if I was one, I would be a rich man. On a personal level I loathe being associated with that profession and actually was somewhat dumbfounded and hurt the first time someone accused me of being one.

If we lose the right to shoot on the streets, the world will be robbed of an important historical record.

Imagine life without the massive archives that both professionals and amateurs have accumulated, since the advent of photography and the Leica in particular. We have no such record of the world before circa 1850 and in a sense we are more detached from history that occurred before that date.

We talk of people like Napoleon and places like London, before the great fire. Imagine if we had a photographic record that dated that far back? Or even to ancient times? Imagine if we didn't have a photographic record of everyday life in Europe and Asia, before that world was annihilated in WWII?

Photographs bring places and people that have long past back to life. Think of old movie stars. Bogart has been dead for decades, but he's still very much alive, because he continues to live on as a fixed shadow. The New York of the 1970's that Winogrand recorded is still very much alive in his books and prints, because some lawyer didn't stop him from producing a record of that time.

Comment posted by Feli di Giorgio on February 27, 2007

I live in Québec! And I cannot remember the number of times I have been told this: "You can't photograph me. I'm in a public place and I have the right not to be photographed..." Here too this is a real problem and because of this I have taken the bad habit of not showing peoples' faces in my photos! Can you imagine that? Now can you imagine everyone in Québec doing the same? This is a fact, in my opinion, that the real photo-documentation of Québec will soon be a thing of the past!

Comment posted by Yannis Dessureault on February 27, 2007

I live in Los Angeles and have, like Feli the previous commenter, been accused of being paparazzi. I think one aspect of photography that has changed from the days of Erwitt, HCB, Robert Frank, et al, is the internet. With the web, anyone with a camera can share, promote, and possibly exploit those unassuming people on the street. The digital domain has altered the public opinion of photography as a whole, which I believe has become an "anyone can do it" attitude because of the widespread exposure of amateur photography which in many cases can be unflattering to the subjects. I believe this problem will only get worse as photographic technology becomes more available in the form of camera-phones, digital point & shoots, and hidden "spy" cameras.

Comment posted by Terence Patrick on February 28, 2007

I live in Paris, and here too, there are very strict laws regarding the publishing of photographs of people without their consent. In short, if you don't have a written model's release, you may not publish the photograph, unless you put a mosaic over the person's face. Of course, nothing in the law says about not being allowed to shoot, it's just about publishing; however negative reaction to street photographers abounds...

Comment posted by Gueorgui Tcherednitchenko on March 3, 2007

Ah, the famous “droit de l’image”! The consequences of it here in France range from laughable to obscene (def. – “so excessive as to be offensive”). News items on one channel with faces blurred out can be seen on another with no blur (who got it right I wonder?). France is home to arguably the best photo magazines in the world, which makes it even more upsetting to see them all asking for signed authorisations for photos entered in competitions. The result of this is a total lack of spontaneity - blurred photos, family & friends, self-portraits and the set posed piece ( right now you’ve all signed the authorisations, smile please!) A magazine, which I have a great deal of respect for, organised a competition a few years ago. It was supposed to be a homage to the work of August Sander – the winner was a bloke who’d taken photos of himself dressed up as different figures ( fireman etc) from our modern society – well that certainly got around the problem of authorisations but didn’t August Sander photograph real people? I do a bit of teaching in one of the photography school’s near Paris & recently I brought in a British photographer to look at students’ work and talk about his own. One of the students took photos of us all. When he’d finished looking at the portfolios the student asked him if he’d sign an authorisation. This didn’t surprise me too much but when the student started asking the other students for authorisations it just felt like a scene from Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”! I refused and assured the student that I wouldn’t sue no matter how bad I looked! So my advice to you Gueorgui, is never push an authorisation in someone’s face, you’ll only be adding to the general paranoia that this has generated. Just smile & nod it’s usually enough. And enter competitions but don’t send in authorisations – if we all did this the magazines would have to react. This is probably a little naïve but I often wonder what would happen if all professionals refused to go along with it. The courtrooms would no doubt be full & the already overworked French judicial system would again have to react – intelligently I hope!

Comment posted by James Cox on March 4, 2007

Hi everyone, this is great, but sad, to see that a lot of photographer are in the same position these days. But, for my generation, and the others to come, I agree with mister Parr, mister Duclos, mister Storz just to name a few: PLEASE! take the risk! As my Lomographer friends says: Don't think: just shoot!

Comment posted by Julie Gauthier on March 6, 2007

There seems to be something perfect about the notion of "A faked portrait of my generation". As digital cameras supercede film and the speed and interactivity with which we communicate become ever more sophisticated there is the feeling that the nature of our living experience is inherently 'synthesised'.

Images today, sadly, are created by the masses with a built in sense of disposability. They are for emailing and posting on sites designed to advertise ourselves. An image of the beloved pug or a happened upon disaster site while on holiday in Thailand become one, pixels grabbed by a mobile phone between text messages and used to show others the wealth of our own experience rather than illustrate the diversity of others.

Even sadder still is the increasing 'marginalisation' of street photographers. Frowned upon by endless lower rung figures of authority as some kind of deeply subersive zealots, the idea of 'capturing the essence of the human experience' is alien to most. 'What will you do with that picture?' people ask. 'You can't take pictures here' the security guard in the pharmacy says as you walk in with your camera on your shoulder. 'Come with me' the police officer says, as he arrests you for 'obstructing sidewalk traffic'. It's tough but nobody said it was easy...

Comment posted by ross on March 7, 2007

The case of Aubry v. Vice Versa came around because of some fairly unique circumstances.

Quebec has - in effect - it's own constitution separate from the Canadian Constitution. Based in part on French rather than British law it has what amounts to a limited right to privacy in public - which thus had to be balanced equally against the rights of the press and of freedom of expression. (BTW it was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, not Quebec).

The same right to privacy isn't enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, for example, so the rights of expression and of the press tend to still carry more weight.

The result in Quebec is that news outlets - print and TV - now have to ensure they obtain a release, especially for such generic images as "Quebecer struggles with umbrella" in the case of autumn storms etc (though the Court did outline some exceptions, such as newsworthy events and so on). But it has had an effect on "street photogrpahy" in Quebec to some extent

Comment posted by tim atherton on March 7, 2007

In a time when a lot of people have a MySpace, Facebook or a profile at some other online networking website, I find it odd that people would seriously have a problem with being portrayed as they were.

I'll explain.

Let's say a mother is smoking a cigarette as she cradles her baby, and that gets photographed by some street photographer and she has a problem with it portraying her badly, the fault lies in the subject, not the photographer.

Additionally, she has no rights to that picture, in my opinion. The Sistane Chapel doesn't own a painting someone makes of it.

This measure is just another way our flow of information is being stemmed and distorted.

Mustafah

Comment posted by Mustafah Abdulaziz on March 8, 2007

I'm deeply concerned about diminishing photographers rights. I could cite numerous incidents whereby whilst taking shots on the streets of the UK I have been approached either by security guards or other people questioning my motives when in fact on any of these occasions I was completely innocent of any wrong doing.

In Blackpool last year I really lost my temper after I was approached by a kiosk owner. He confronted me and called me a paedophile. At that time I was taking seascapes and of course, on the beach were a variety of individuals from young to old. This guy was so aggresive that I had to eventually tell him that if he didn't get out of my face then I would have no option but to bounce him.

As a street photographer I am sensitive to peoples privacy and yet at the same time I feel that photographers play a vital role in the documentationof human existence.

Comment posted by John Washington on March 11, 2007

Hello foto people,
Do any of you know anything about the British governments' plans to ban all public photography? I heard they are trying to introduce a bill to ban all photography in public places? I was sent a petition about it on the email? Is it true? If this is true then the only people allowed to photograph will be the government photographing us - as there are cameras everywhere, on virtually every traffic light, every street corner etc. Its a very strange concept that only THEY will be allowed to photograph and video us?? How will they prevent people from photographing? maryfitz

Comment posted by mary fitz on March 15, 2007

Our glorious government...can you imagine being sent down for it?... : )

"What are in for?"
"I got five years hard labour for doing panoramic landscapes. What about you?"
"I got a life sentence for doing cheque presentation photography"
"oooh...thats serious...understandable really...did you fog your films aswell?"

Comment posted by mary fitz on March 16, 2007

Totally agree

Comment posted by MattGar on May 17, 2007

The images shot by chance encounter (street) photography form such a valuable record of cultural and social issues throughout the world.
If some countries ban photography in public places - that may possibly be considered as an extremist measure !
What about the right to freedom of expression ?

Comment posted by Richard Alan Mulford on October 15, 2007

It depends where you shoot in Los Angeles.

In Beverly Hills, yes, they might think you are on the trail of a celebrity shopping inside a store. In Hollywood, along Highland, everyone is a tourist, so you can actually shoot anyone without problems.

I was harassed in Van Nuys last year when I photographed the historic Valley Municipal Building. A right-wing, paranoid older woman was leaving the structure and confronted me. She asked, "Why are you shooting this building?". She said "there are people who want to harm our country" and she was convinced she was doing her civic and patriotic duty to prevent another 9/11 in Van Nuys.

What she didn't realize is that SHE is harming our country.

Comment posted by andy on November 19, 2007

I've done street photography in Greece and England and in both cases I've been hassled no end of times by officials who seem to think that possession of a camera by anyone other than a tourist is tantamount to terrorism or subversion.

Though the worst case has to be in Greece where I was badly beaten and arrested by police simply for taking photographs of them during a peaceful demo.

In a world ever more covered by CCTV I find the idea of banning street photography absurd.

Comment posted by Craig Wherlock on March 27, 2008

A truely depressing situation and one of the reasons I no longer live in the West. However, it's also so typical and inevitable in the paranoid societies that have developed primarily in the so-called 'developed' world. I guess that's what happens when technology and GDP are given priority over GHP - Gross Happiness Product. We've created a distinctly unpleasant world, but one that is seen as being something to emulate by so-called less developed countries.
So photographic art is dying; I guess I'd better return to painting. No one seems too worried about what you paint or draw even in public, ironically. And that was the only means of social documentation before photography came along.

Comment posted by Nigel Amies on April 10, 2008

mary fitz, as you've probably realised since posting, that petition was woefully misinformed and there was never any suggestion that public photography would be banned. Since then of course there has been the ridiculously overwrought anti-terrorism campaign against photographers in London.

Comment posted by Miles on April 17, 2008