London Streets Get More Hostile for Photographers
Saturday March 29, 2008
London has been in the headlines a lot this last year. One of the most memorable was the attack on a photographer outside a London Underground station. Now London police seem to be throwing further gasoline onto the fire of distrust aimed at photographers. According to the Times Online, the London Metropolitan Police have a new set of posters up in the city stating "Thousands of people take photos every day," and "What if one of them seems odd?" The Times then reports that "the poster states that terrorists use cameras for surveillance."
Post-9/11 is a difficult world for photographers who like street photography. Pre-9/11 the public was already flexing their legal muscles (and sometimes their physical ones) to prevent unwanted photography in public places. Events like Princess Dianna's death, numerous paparazzi confrontations in Hollywood, and pedophiles stalking children, have soured the public on all street photographers because of a few rotten apples. Now that the fear of terrorism is added to the mix the public has reached a point where any camera seen in public is often viewed as a threat.
While I completely understand and support a person's right to not be the sole focus of a photograph (even in a public place), there is no right to not be caught in the background of an image. The fear level has gotten so high that photographers taking photographs of public landmarks are targets of others viewing the landmark who assume they are being "snapped" by the photographer.
Now that the Metropolitan Police are adding fuel to this fire of mistrust, what will the next confrontation be? Is this just another step toward tighter restrictions on where we can carry cameras? Or on the banning of photography in cities completely?
Post-9/11 is a difficult world for photographers who like street photography. Pre-9/11 the public was already flexing their legal muscles (and sometimes their physical ones) to prevent unwanted photography in public places. Events like Princess Dianna's death, numerous paparazzi confrontations in Hollywood, and pedophiles stalking children, have soured the public on all street photographers because of a few rotten apples. Now that the fear of terrorism is added to the mix the public has reached a point where any camera seen in public is often viewed as a threat.
While I completely understand and support a person's right to not be the sole focus of a photograph (even in a public place), there is no right to not be caught in the background of an image. The fear level has gotten so high that photographers taking photographs of public landmarks are targets of others viewing the landmark who assume they are being "snapped" by the photographer.
Now that the Metropolitan Police are adding fuel to this fire of mistrust, what will the next confrontation be? Is this just another step toward tighter restrictions on where we can carry cameras? Or on the banning of photography in cities completely?
Comments
“I completely understand and support a person’s right to not be the sole focus of a photograph (even in a public place)…”
What?!?!? I don’t understand that at all. Now of course I can’t SELL or otherwise license that photograph without that person’s permission. But let me be clear. There is NO RIGHT of a person to not be in a photograph in a public place even if they are the sole subject of the photograph. They may not like it and they may not want it, but I as the photographer have not in any way violated any of their rights by taking the photograph.
I strongly suggest that you read the document at the attached URL. In part it reads:
“Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.”
The right which you claim does not exist.
Please bear in mind that laws differ from country to country. Also, I am well aware of Mr. Krages information and consider him very knowledgeable on the subject. However, while we may legally be allowed to take photographs of anyone in public, I was referring to a person’s desire for privacy. Just because we have a “legal” right doesn’t mean it is always “morally” right.
If nothing else, its a matter of good manners to not force ourselves photographically on someone who doesn’t want our attention.
Steve,
Attitudes like that is why more photographers in general are being less welcome and why instances of violence against harrassing photographers are increasing. Yes, everyone has the “right” to be an jerk in public. That doesn’t mean they should be. But if they do choose to be, they also choose to accept any reprecussion against them. Granted, the person being photographed may be the one to pay a big fine or go to jail for a while, but the photographer is the one who loses sympathy with the public and henceforth becomes less tolerable by the public in general. Make your choice and live with it. No one likes a jerk.
Last year a group of photographers from TWA Group (www.twagroup.org) were having an outing in Hastings. This co-incided with the Rememberance Sunday parade. A group of hoons had thrown eggs at the parade and we were approached by police to see if we had been in the vacinity and captured anything on film. At least these officers realised the benefits that photographers could bring to the community. Surely a terrorist will use a mobile phone – snap – mail – image away!
It isn’t just about ‘rights’ it’s about repect and while in no way condoning the attack I can understand people being very uncomfortable with photographers exercising their ‘right’ to photgraph them in a very in your face manner.
A bit of common sense needed I think.
I am focusing my next year doctoral thesis on this subject, photography and the privacy law with an extension to the terrorist laws, and I would be very grateful if I could see the document Steve is talking about, as I can’t find it anywhere. Thank you very much!
The document is from Bert Krages who wrote Legal Handbook for Photographers. The link to his document is at the bottom of my article on photographer rights.
http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/ss/PhotoRights.htm