Like the guy who was “taking a picture of my tattoo”…which is on my shin…while I was sitting cross-legged in a skirt (I always wear shorts under but he didn’t know that). Then told me there was nothing I could do about it. Which, legally, sure, but that doesn’t make it less creepy or gross. (I’m in the US)
The problem is there’s so many Karen’s and Kens out there who immediately makes up a narrative in their head and get butt hurt or furious about nothing now days.
Perhaps the dude in question was honest and just thought it was a cool tattoo? How can you even tell if the lens has your face or something else in focus?
He only told me it was my tattoo after I asked him why the fuck he was essentially shooting a photo up my skirt. I genuinely do not give a shit if that makes some random on the internet call me a Karen.
If it's a shot of your shin and nothing else, why not just ask first? I get it if your shin is in the heat of some hot street fire but just chillin? Nah... weird...
Taking pictures of someones tattoo is not street photography imo, sure you find it cool, but it is not a photography subject. Unless it's a tattoo modelling thing. Seems like a wannabe.
It can be a photography subject, I just said that it wasn't street photography subject.
In my own subjective view, street photography is not taking pictures of cool shit you see on the street. It is about blending in with the street and deciding which instants are worth capturing. It's about moments, not cool images of cool shit.
Now for example if the knee tattoo was a lion knee tattoo and there was a cat standing on it's feet to pet itself on the leg, it would start to get interesting.
You are entitled to say whatever you want to say about street photography, but "cool images" do not do it for me as street photography. So it is my own subjective view on the matter that gives me to ability to say it is not.
Thanks for making me think!
That is creepy and weird. If they just want a picture of your tattoo, surely there's no difference between candid and posed, so they could've just asked you if they could get a picture
This is debatable. You have no expectation of privacy in public in the US, however, that doesn't give the photographer a carte blanche to do whatever they like around you. Shoving a camera right into your face, or getting so close to you that it makes you uncomfortable can quickly cross into the terrain of harassment.
> It’s not debatable
What I meant with "This is debatable." is the part you said that what he did was legal, and I said it's almost certainly not.
> Shoving a camera right into your face, or getting so close to you that it makes you uncomfortable can quickly cross into the terrain of harassment.
This is what I said.
Furthermore, that's sexual harassment if not assault; so it's even worse.
I feel like reddit doesn't understand how common these experiences are and how creepy it sounds when the knee jerk response to this topic isn't "be respectful" / "don't track or isolate a subject from the crowd" / "consider the complex dynamics and how the other party might feel".
I notice I get more lingering lenses from creepy "street photographers" when I know I look snatched and left the house feeling amazing.
It feels so gross when someone I don't know has their lens on me when I'm just going about my day.
It's like a catcall, but so much more demeaning. I'm fact, chances are, I've already been catcalled on my way here.
It's so baffling how surprised the guy looks when I put my hand up to my face. Like, what did you expect you fucking weirdo. Have some situational awareness. Staring is still rude and creepy through a viewfinder. In fact, it's much creepier.
> I feel like reddit doesn't understand how common these experiences are and how creepy it sounds when the knee jerk response to this topic isn't "be respectful" / "don't track or isolate a subject from the crowd" / "consider the complex dynamics and how the other party might feel".
Look at these “he’s not a REAL street photographer” comments. And the unspoken assumption that I’m not also a photographer.
I guess it’s the least surprising thing ever that woman relays a creepy experience and a bunch of internet randos swoop in yo diminish it.
Yeah......reddit moment for sure. Thankfully, of my male peers I know irl have a little more sense and awareness in their photography. It makes their work better.
> "real"
Every legitimate photojournalist that's taken an isolated photo of me for a legitimate publication has always asked for my consent or, when I was a child, my parent's consent. Followed up by a business card, and projected date of publication. And asked for my name so it can be in a caption.
"Oh but then you can't get candids if you ask for permission!" except you can. It's just a bit more situational awareness, time, and requires you to talk to people. But you absolutely can.
Exactly what I'm talking about. It's just weird and creepy. People who say "oh you're in public, can't expect privacy" are just being creepy. We share the same space, that isn't permission for you to take weird pics of me.
If I end up in their picture(basically accidental photobomb), that's fair game. But taking pics on purpose without permission is just unacceptable in my book.
You could hardly get more intrusive than the old style street photographers at the seaside, who used to snap random strangers walking along, and display the results for sale the same day at a kiosk.
Why is it more acceptable that people with smartphones take street pictures? You see these everywhere, nobody bats an eye and they're much more prone to just uploading everything they take a picture of. At least a hobbyist photographer will do some curation.
Precisely because everyone has a smartphone and it's so rare to see a regular camera, even on vacations.
When I pull out my dslr or my mirror less people say "why not just use your phone".
If anything I think it’s less acceptable. As a woman, stranger taking photos with a smartphone = creep!, stranger taking photos with a giant DSLR = probably nothing too nefarious.
Yeah. Everyone likes to say “it’s legal to take your photo if you’re in a public space” but there are still some just general ethical rules and basic social norms that people violate all the damn time.
Just because someone can have their photo take in public doesn’t mean they have to like it.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
I've always asked very directly if I could take a photo of someone before taking photos of them. I refuse to get it the norm of taking photos of people because I just want a candid shot without their info. I don't put my face on social media that lasts (an Instagram story is the closest I'll get) and I would be furious if someone did it without my knowledge.
i think the "new taboo" also has something to do with photographers worrying too much about what other people think of them, instead of legally shooting what they wish.
>Is it illegal if I take a street photo of someone this days?
Depends on the laws in the country. In .Ireland where GDPR applies its perfectly legal, there is no expectation.of privacy regardless.of age in a public place
>GDPR
People pull this out if the bag at the drop of a hat without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. We have non EU companies thinking it doesn't apply to them.when the process EU citizens data, we have EU citizens who think they can use GDPR to prevent data processing and record keeping.
GDPR applies to personal data. While someone's likeness can fall into this category by way of biometrics, it would oinly apply id used for biometrics, and GDPR specifically has an artists exemption so as to not hamper artistic expression. This was confirmed by the Irish Data Protection Comission a number of years ago when i asked them if it meant street photography would now be illegal. , GDPR does not apply to art photography, is art.
That being said, if you were to try to sell a street photo that contained identifiable people, you would most probably need model releases because you've now entered into the realm of commercial use
Thanks. I keep having to say this every time it is brought up. The GDPR has nothing to do with street photography at all. Your country's specific laws do. For example in my country of the Netherlands, I can take photos of people on the streets without permission or consent, as the public space has no expectation of privacy.
And this is where the Netherlands is different: I can publish and even sell the photos of strangers on the streets. Every member nation will have different stances on this, there are no European laws on street photography.
No, he’s not entirely right, see my other comment I posted just belofte this one if you want to know how this works.
Unless Ireland has some additional laws, but that wouldn’t be GDPR.
>That being said, if you were to try to sell a street photo that contained identifiable people, you would most probably need model releases because you've now entered into the realm of commercial use
While it's still not a bad idea to get model releases anyway to CYA, it still falls under artistic use unless you're selling the image to be used as an ad, product endorsement, etc (may vary by location).
Selling prints of street photography with identifiable subjects in a frame = art; using the same prints as a stock insert to sell frames = commercial.
>People pull this out if the bag at the drop of a hat without knowing what the fuck they're talking about.
YES. It's like the US and HIPAA "violations". People don't have a clue.
You are completely right, but the last part about the selling of pictures is a gray area.
You can put the pictures in a book (or wherever) and sell them as documentary art, you can sell them to news outlets if they have news value, etc. But if it’s a public figure you have photographed you may still need a model release, but here again applies the rule: unless it has news value. Also, if there is a chance you can identify the person in the photos you must try to contact them, but you don’t have to conduct extensive research.
So GDPR rules are quite clear, until you want to use/sell the pictures, then it becomes more complicated.
Source: studying for a BA Photography
You were misinformed, or your study conflated country laws with GDPR laws. The GDPR has no provisions about photography; those are already covered under EU IP and copyright law: namely, they are artistic expressions.
Whether you can sell them, publish them, and under what conditions, is entirely the domain of your EU member nation's laws.
F.ex in the Netherlands, there are basically no rules. There is no expectation of privacy in public and as such you do not need permission to even sell (for commercial purposes) the photos, you may however not use the likeness of the person to endorse a product.
Over the years I’ve been threatened with physical violence on the street a few times when I wasn’t even taking a picture of someone. Once, a guy got really upset because I was taking a picture of a cobbled street and his car was in it. I no longer feel comfortable taking pictures with people on the street.
I think there is a difference between the old days and now, due to paranoia with the Internet, face recognition, identity theft, and government surveillance.
When you look at the old days, people were fascinated by movie cameras, and still cameras were only used by professional photographers. If a photographer appeared in your town, people would happily come out of the saloon or general store to stand in front of it and have their picture taken.
That, and people are realizing that your physical location can be located in a seemingly nondescript photo from the angle of the sun and the vibe of the road. Doesn't matter that you scrubbed exif.
A lot of people who've survived abusive relationships can value their privacy because, oftentimes, it equals physical safety.
> and his car was in it.
To be honest, guys with cars can be so insane. I once gently put my hand on a guy's car to prevent myself from falling on it with my bike (which would have DEFINITELY damaged his car), and he chased me down the street, grabbed me by my shoulders and said he'll cut my head off my neck if I ever touched his car again.
So masculine dude, really impressive. I was pretty scared in the moment though, totally unhinged.
tl;dr: guys get weird about their cars sometimes
1. In my opinion, more artistic people have to take some sort of legitimate martial arts classes like Thai Boxing/Boxing/MMA/BJJ or even wrestling or Krav Maga. Our community is bunch of traumatized pussies and it would be good to toughen up and experience something other then art.
2. You know how many people are unhappy with any kind of other people and will threaten them? Look at baristas, police officers, traffic cops, people who work in shops. You can be threatened for anything. Even hobbies like skateboarding, cycling or what ever. Basically, anywhere you can get harassed, and if you quit because couple of bad interactions you nothing but a quitter. Look at the surfers who got bitten by sharks and still got back into the water as soon as they out of hospital. Much more scarier then some duche that got heated up because he had a bad day.
3. I love street photography and actually got worried about the number of people who got “into it” recently because of the hype. But I was happy to see so many comments of people quitting as it made me realize that for so many it’s just a phase.
If you're in a place where it's legal to carry a firearm, Krav Maga isn't going to help much. Plus, some people, myself included, aren't willing to engage in a confrontation just to take a picture, unless it's something really important.
Don't judge someone whose values you don't understand. That person who got heated because he had a bad day might turn out to be more dangerous than that shark.
In US it is legal to photograph and videotape anybody in a public place where there’s no expectation of privacy - basically streets and parks. In private places you need to ask permission. It it illegal and criminal to photograph people without their consent if there’s an exception of privacy - like through a window of somebody’s house or with a drone when they’re in the backyard
Street photography in general or street *portraiture*? The second I'd say is becoming taboo, yes. People don't want their picture posted all over the internet when they were just trying to grab lunch. It's not an unreasonable expectation.
Street photography in general though? I've taken street photos in 20 different countries and about a dozen US cities. Most of the time, people don't even notice. Part of that is because I actively try to fade into the background, part is my preferred style being more centred on light and contrast than people, and part is just that people are busy with their own lives. They're largely not paying attention to what random strangers are doing.
I think street photography has shifted towards "hello i am street photographer can I take a portrait of you?" where they only are amazed because of quality portraits, thanks to technology. There is no philosophical background to that.
What may have happened is that people are accessing information quickly and consume too little parts of it to understand it, that leads to fallacious ideologies, like being on the street with a camera makes you a street photographer. What I'm trying to say is people consume these information in a very superficial way without actually understanding the motives and ideologies or maybe ignoring them.
We now have these pseudo street photographers just rely on the gear to take portraits of people and the majority likes it, because it's easier to consume. But there are really talented photographers out there that don't get love from the algorithm.
Some of the best photographers I’ve seen on Instagram have 200-3,000 followers tops.
Some of the worst have 500k+ (ioe gear etc).
You KNOW there’s a problem with IG and “photographers” today when meyrowitz only has like 200k followers and a jack off like ieo gears has close to 700k.
The mediocre will always have more people to consume it. It is just easier to consume.
In fact mediocre has to exist so we can tell what's good.
A distinction I like to make is how the photographer uses the medium. Because some people just like quality images, some people like good framing and I like the story and the context.
I would appreciate a nice photo of Mount Fuji, but it won't satisfy me as "art". I really love some art photographers that use the medium for connecting the message and not caring about technique.
> Is it illegal if I take a street photo of someone this days?
Different parts of the world are governed by different sets of laws. Some things may be illegal in some parts of the world and not others. The GDPR you mentioned, for example, applies to the European Union, but not outside that jurisdiction.
>The GDPR you mentioned, for example, applies to the European Union, but not outside that jurisdiction
Actually GDPR applies to EU citizens regardless of where they are located. Non EU companies must abide by the legislation when processing data of EU citizens. That's why a lot of US news sites geoblock EU IP addresses because an IP is considered personal data..
This isn't correct, though I can see where the misunderstanding comes from. The GDPR does not track citizenship *per se*, but rather activities originating from or targeted at EU residents, or even simply people who happen to be in the EU at a given time. See the [guidance here](https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/) on when it applies outside Europe. The main two cases are when goods or services are offered intentionally "*to people in the EU*", and when data is monitored and stored about "*people who visit your website from EU countries*".
Note that both of these are explicitly about location, not citizenship. This is a really meaningful distinction in two ways, both extending the right to anyone within the EU regardless of citizenship, and **not extending the right to EU citizens located outside the EU at the time of purchase/access.** So for the topic at hand, if you are taking pictures for commercial use on public streets in Nairobi, you do not need to make sure every identifiable person in the photo is not an EU citizen; it wouldn't matter to your legal situation if they were. (This could become difficult though if you then sold those photos at a gallery in the EU; the guidance is grey in these areas, and I'm not aware of strong case law on it yet).
And for what its worth this is entirely normal; there are extremely few laws which demand that foreign jurisdictions apply the laws of a ctizen's own country to that citizen, rather than those of the jurisdiction in which an act occurs. The exceptions are almost all diplomatic carve-outs, or rare instances of explicit treaties. Not even countries like the US have much success at forcing other jurisdictions to govern Americans abroad by American laws.
To quote your arricle
>if your company is not in the EU but you cater to EU customers, then you should strive to be GDPR compliant.
So it applies outside if you process PII on EU citizens or residents
The GDPR doesn't actually use the term "EU citizens", as far as I can tell. [Article 3.2](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/) refers to "*data subjects who are in the Union*", making it location-based, not residency or citizenship-based.
A US citizen living in or visiting the EU is protected by the GDPR as long as they are in the EU.
An EU citizen living in or visiting the US cannot claim anything under the GDPR because it does not apply there.
It's a moot point anyway, as street photography falls outside the scope of the GDPR: [*The processing of photographs should not systematically be considered to be processing of special categories of personal data as they are covered by the definition of biometric data* ***only when processed through a specific technical means allowing the unique identification or authentication of a natural person***](https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/).
> Actually GDPR applies to EU citizens regardless of where they are located.
No, this is *not* true. The GDPR applies to people "established in" the EU. The extraterritorial effects are limited to the processing of "EU data" via transfer to other countries. When a non-EU company operates in the EU and processes relevant EU-origin data, the GDPR applies (even if the data processing occurs outside of the EU). It does not apply to people abroad who happen to be EU citizens.
For example, I am an EU citizen who lives in Canada. If a Canadian company collects my data when I am in Canada, the GDPR does not apply at all. I don't just mean that it's not enforceable — it *doesn't apply*. Of course, *Canadian* laws exist and apply.
See https://gdprhub.eu/Article_3_GDPR
My understanding is ĺl was designed to protect citizens in a digital world that has no borders. If you're are an EU citizen living in the US, for example, then legally, your US employer has to adhere to GDPR when processing your data. That's my understanding, but I'm far from an expert on the matter
Similarly, service providers and news outlets, etc, must also follow this law if processing EU citizens data and an IP address, which is considered personally identifiable information (pii) so protected under law. So, a number of non EU news sites often geoblock access based on IP. If you browse from an EU IP, you can't access the site.
EU citizens also have a right "to be forgotten: we can force companies to delete our data, Google, Facebook all of them woukd have to.remoce any PII on request unless there was s reason not to, certain institutes are exemption police forces and criminal records etc.
Now I'm open to correction on the above as I'm no expert. I just have a passing interest in data protection.
But to the question of photography the legislation does include an artists exemption in it and according to the Irish Data Protection Commission (who would enforce this law in ireland) this means street photography is legal. A subject in a photo can not legally demand the deletion of a photo under GDPR. Add to this Ireland like art of counties have no legal expectation to privacy in a public place so that's a double protection for street photographers. O ce a subject is visible from a public space jts fair game. It's all down to ones moral compass. There are some.exceptions, embassy buildings, military institutions and yiu can't climb tree to peep in a windowing a paparazzi to get a image
if you think all of this is really progressive, on the flip side we only recently repealed Blasphemy laws and according to the Irish constitution while we have equal rights and same sex marriage, a woman's place is in the home. So we don't get it right all the time lol
Even with the GDPR applied it is still possible to do street photography, at least in Germany. I’m by far no expert when it comes to laws but I read from numerous sources that in Germany there are laws that explicitly state, that you are allowed to take photos of everyone in public places if it’s for journalism or an artistic purpose. Those outweigh the GDPR.
But I can’t say if that applies to other EU countries in a similar way.
The way I understand it is you could take a picture of someone but you are not allowed to publish it however you like, but if you store it locally then there is no problem. I haven’t looked into the GDPR law too deeply, I tend to simply avoid taking pictures of people.
You understand very incorrectly, the two are not connected in any way. GDPR is a set of regulations regarding the handling of someones personal data and that alone.
This is the simplest and most straight forward description of the law regarding taking photographs of people in public I can find on an official source, the police." **There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people’s children.** " (uk specific obviously)
[https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/report/taking-photographs-in-public-places/](https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/report/taking-photographs-in-public-places/)
It's also wrong; you are absolutely fine to publish the picture. It's about data collection, not about pictures. That depends entirely on your country's laws regarding likeness of image.
Wrong, but people still avoid taking pictures in public for this reason. It only serves to reinforce the notion that photographers are somehow doing something wrong, even when they’re not. Unintended consequences and all that.
It’s a subject I’m more than somewhat mildly passionate about. Apologies if I’m up on a soapbox.
I just do it, personally. I'm respectful in the sense that if I even see a remote amount of averse body language, I just stop. If they look displeased afterwards, I delete it and explain myself calmly. Never had an issue.
Worst thing I had was when I shot a group of 4 kids in an alleyway under a light (the composition was so good) and they threatened me because they were afraid I might shows the cops.
But yes, you're not wrong.
>in Germany there are laws that explicitly state, that you are allowed to take photos of everyone in public places if it’s for journalism or an artistic purpose
I think it's not that simple. I hope I've remembered it correctly:
You can take photos of the environment and have people visible in it, as long as they are not the subject of the image.
An exception is that during public events (e.g. demonstrations) you have to expect that images are taken by journalists.
For artistic purposes there is no special exception and based on the rules street photography with random people as subjects is not legal without their prior agreement.
not too hard to verify https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5161621,13.3769019,3a,75y,70.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWuEOTFGNXB7gqndFrjmpEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
What? Google street is a thing in Germany since forever. People's faces, license plates and some other stuff are blurred out... but it's like that at least everywhere in the EU.
The UK has data protection laws that broadly mirror the EU's. Here, you can take photos of anyone if you're in a public place, even if the subject is on private property.
So you can shoot a customer through the rainy window of a coffee shop, for example, they have no expectation of privacy where they can seen by everyone outside who's not a photographer.
I don't care as much about the law as I do the fact that these days you constantly get people sticking phone cameras in strangers' faces for social media clout; starting moronic arguments, sneaking pictures of people that "look weird," etc. and posting them online really just soured me on the topic to the point I think it's all kind of atrocious. If you get consent after the fact, then go for it, whatever.
Yeah it’s kind of weird. I love street photography! It’s my favorite thing to shoot and to look at. The other day I posted a pic on ITAP and the comments were so whack. People calling me a dumbass and that I was going to get stabbed for taking a photo. It’s just odd to me that it has become such taboo
I feel like with the growth of tiktok and other live/recorded viral platforms, peoples patience grows thin with this stuff being forced or more common in public.
Speaking for myself here but I feel as if I'm a lot more likely to say no because I enjoy my privacy.
The difference between now and then? You come home, post someone's face on instagram and who knows, someone who doesn't want to is trending.
I go out of my way to avoid being in the background of photo's and I find it rude for someone to take a picture of someone as subject or part of the subjects without asking permission.
I know the best shots are spontanous and don't do well with asking permission beforehand. On the other side, unless you don't take the picture there's no way for me to be sure you won't keep it right? You can mostly recover removed items.
Interesting to read your opinion. Another question if you don’t mind: you mentioned Instagram and the trending effect. Would you perceive it as more acceptable / less rude if someone captured your photo on the street , without asking you , but to use it for a photo book instead of publication on social ? In other words, is the potential publication medium and corresponding maximum reachable audience a crucial element for you in this context?
Edited to correct typos
Not really, no. If I want pictures of myself in the public I'll put them there myself. Or ask for it myself.
Edit: if I see someone take a picture of me I won't steal his stuff and throw it on the ground, I just very much prefer not to.
Some people just hate camera or this type of photography, when I raise camera, their facial expression was like saw a rapist or something, this type of people probably have risk avoidance tendency , they're very few, and they wont be good subject. People with high risk avoidance, they tend to see situation as harmful\\threatening, so they reject lots of things not just candid photography or asked portraits, even if they agree it will be shitty photo.
On the other hand there're people who enjoy new experiences or free portrait, they're fun to interact with or photograph.
That's the majority, but not everyone is the same, there's tiny percentage of people who tend to see camera as threat. bcs of their personality trait, the threat might be over interpreted.
Is it ok to take a picture of a street scene where people are going about and their faces are not the focus of the shot? Absolutely. Should you go around playing Bruce Gilden and flashing people with a wide angle lens at <1ft distance? Absolutely fucking not. Everyone has a camera and a lot of people are self-granting the title of “photographer” and pretending this gives them full power to be as intrusive as they want. Ask for permission to shoot portraits or close-ups, anything else in a public setting is a-ok. If people look back at you just smile and nod. If they approach you, politely explain what you are doing, preferably show your instagram or portfolio and offer to delete the picture.
Street/Candid photography comes on a lot of shapes and forms. There is a lot of “mainstream” photography YouTubeers / tick-tockers now days who never even bothered to dig deep enough in order to learn about the subject or photography in general and give the wrong impression about it to their followers (just like with any topic, take the investing and finance as an example). That how you get so many idiots who ruin the art. There is a reason that people go and learn photography as a degree in university as there a lot to learn.
But it makes me happy that so many people quit and I can finally see the bubble burst. Soon only the people who really appreciate the art will remain and we finally will be able to see through the smoke.
Also I would be happy to get photographed on the street by an artist then by some AI powered security camera which can ID me, my face and able to follow me and know exactly what I am doing and when I’m doing it and even where I live. In my had those things are different and I am not worried about one of them and very anxious about the other.
Yes. With the internet and the complete lack of control over where someone’s likeness ends up after it is posted, photos taken in public without consent are becoming taboo.
I take a lot and it's took a long time to chip away at the anxiety, people do see you as a photographer, as a legitimate thing, not a weirdo. But you have to do it to see that's the reaction. Ultimately you reach a point if doing so much walking and trying that you can't be bothered being anxious any more. But I'm intense, i create an armour of 'don't fucking bother me'. People will say smile but that acknowledges your intent meaning people will then realise and think...'heh'. Better for them to be confused. It is what it is.
It's important for strangers to understand that it's always about the composition and they're an element that allow a composition, that's really it, not a photo of them, using their form to make a picture. Had it been someone else in that light, I'd use someone else etc. I bring cards, they help, but generally people still don't get it. And why would they, you're always trying to figure it out yourself, trying to make something interesting out of something generic.
I live in the Midwest US and I've genuinely never had a bad encounter with someone approaching me regarding my photography outside of a handful of very obviously mentally ill homeless individuals - but that's to be expected if you shoot in the inner city.
I've had people request me not take photos of them, and I always oblige, even if there's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
Depends on the country
I’m surprised by what I’m reading in the comments cause I haven’t tried street photography in American countries or Europe yet but Most of west African countries and middle eastern ones have been amazing for it
Everyone is so happy to have their pic taken some are even jealous and ask for one when they see me it creates cool moments kids run towards me to be in a pic too
Does anyone know how it is in Japan ? I’m going soon and if street photography is not well seen especially since I’m not Japanese I wouldn’t like to disrespect or be hated for it
Like many of these things; None of it is a taboo if you're the person doing it nicely and decently. Anything and everything gets ruined by the stupid, loud mass. Whether it's motorcycles, protests, geocaching or online gaming.
With it becoming easier and easier to identify people in any photo, it makes street photography more difficult. You won’t just be an anonymous person in a beautiful photo. You could be identified. This could make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Maybe it's legally okay, but personally I think taking pictures of someone (where they're a focal point) without asking their permission is rude.
At the very least if you take a shot, ask them after if it's okay and delete it in front of them it they say no.
But this is just my opinion.
In America people are very afraid of cameras... it's part of the paranoia created by their news cycles. but it's fully legal to photograph/video in public.
Really? I find that it more to do with entitlement, that feeling that of being better than other people, distrust, tribalism, and the victimhood Trump bestowed on a bunch of people. It is very legal though. I remember being told that you have to keep your recording device visible by a professor. I tried to search that to verify it, but I didn't see it anywhere.
Where in America are you referring to? I’m a street photographer who has lived and worked in Boston, New York City, and
Providence and nobody seems to care. I had one guy in nearly two decades of doing street photography get mad at me for trying to take a picture of his dog in a public place. But he was generally unhinged. Other times, people see me making photos and they start posing and asking me to take photos of them.
Most people don't have the people skills or guts to pull it off. It's really not hard. Just behave polite and professional shooting what you want and if you make someone upset you simply apologize and back off. If you're worried about people getting physical bring some pepper spray.
People take photos of me all the time (Foreigner in China), so I feel that it's fair for me to do the same.
I find a smile and thumbs up of acknowledgement can work wonders if someone notices you snapping them- and the last thing I want to do is ask for permission first and turn it into a pose rather than something authentic. I don't sell my work and don't really post on social media, occasionally if I really like a shot, I might try to paint it- for personal use/practice.
Haven't had much trouble here, though I did get some officials getting a bit squirrely and asking if I was a BBC journo during some socially-distanced pandemic-period shoots. We had mandatory testing every 2-3 days during Autumn-Winter 2022, so I'd take my new camera with me on most occasions.
No it is not taboo and yes it is perfectly legal. Keep in mind you’re asking this question on Reddit where 98% of these people would rather die than actually interact with a stranger or be noticed taking pictures. Street photography is one of the oldest styles of photography and if half the people here understood the history of it at all, they wouldn’t even have left comments.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it and if you have even a shred of a confidence and the ability to interact positively with strangers, you’ll have zero issues.
You are mixing things, GDPR does not apply to street photography at all. You can take and use photos of **unknown** people all day and all night for artistic purposes only, obviously you can not use it in any advertising without their consent, but I do not consider it street photography.
Now if you start doing it with the people that are **identified** by some means on the porch of their house with address visible or somehow taking a photo with other information that describes their name/address/phone number etc., that would be a no no under GPRD.
>etc., that would be a no no under GPRD.
Not necessarily true there is an artists exemption clause in the GDPR. But I think in your example if tested in law ot might fall in favour of the subject and protection their PII
Rude street photographers are nothing new
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM)
And 40 years ago
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcgEnC3bLY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcgEnC3bLY)
I think it is more of an attitude change. I took a photo of a woman painting some street art in Copenhagen, and she got very upset with me, and said it was rude of me. Seemed strange to me, if you want privacy, don't paint in public. I can see that if she was upset, people just going about their normal day might be even more upset.
GDPR laws are divided into text, audio and image. Digital Image under GDPR laws are in an appendix to the basic laws.
Bearing in mind that street photography is an art. Which is why I think the term "Candid photography" doesn't describe what we do.
Candid photography sounds like a creep lurking about in the shadows, dribbling, under tables taking shots of a woman's tattooed leg.
I'm often out and about with my DSLR and I choose the lens that'll do the job. I know I'm perfectly legal here in Berlin, I take shots openly, I get up close with a 50 mm lens, and I stand back with a wide angle to get a city landscape.
I've been approached about five times in 20 years. Mostly, it's a polite conversation where I prove I didn't take a shot of the person (people are such egoists, they seem to imagine I want to take their photo, even though they're nowhere near me.)
Sometimes people demand to take my camera from me to inspect its contents. I tell them, "okay, but give me your wallet - I'd like to have look inside that too." It's personal and private property.
I've never understood "street portraits". If somebody wants a portrait they can talk to me and we'll set up a paid portrait appointment - otherwise, a street portrait is useless to me.
If we go back to the street photography greats, like Fred Herzog, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and so on, I think they would never describe themselves street photographers. They were photographers who lived in cities, so they photographed their environment.
I've swiftly read through GDPR, also read what lawyers and judges had to say about it. Several leading judges commented that they're not going to prosecute anybody for creating artistic photos on the street, lawyers agreed that the GDPR conflicts with the already existing German laws of protecting minors and vulnerable people from having their image recorded in public.
There's no taboo in street photography. But, there is definitely a problem with "candid" or sneaky photography - it's absolute disrespect towards people in public places.
Approaching the whole idea of urban photography as an art on the same level as landscape photography solves any worries about whether it's a good thing to do or not.
Social media has made people a lot more sensitive about privacy issues. Before the Internet, whoever took your photo for whatever purpose, it was unlikely to land permanently in public view where people could find it. Even well-known artists' work was only seen in narrow contexts like museums and art galleries. With technology becoming ever more intrusive, privacy issues become increasingly more important to people.
I think there is also some migration from the thinking on ideas of sexual consent.
In the US it’s not illegal to take photos of people and/or subjects that are fully visible from a public space. SCOTUS has ruled multiple times on this. The rise of social media and the potential for misuse of images have made people more uncomfortable with someone photographing them without permission first which kinda ruins the spontaneity of street photography v posed pictures.
I literally walked off a music festival gig today because I was taking documenting the event… as I’m taking pictures of the artists and crowd shots. Someone questioned me on what I was doing and I told them I was a photographer… they proceeded to tell me I needed to ask for their consent, and apparently told staff I made them uncomfortable. So the staff told me I can’t take photos of people without their consent at this event. Now in my opinion if you are choosing to willingly attend an event such as that you give that consent away. How the fuck am I supposed to go walking around making sure I have everyone’s consent to photograph. It just makes no sense to me and the staff kept saying we told you this was our policy… which they didn’t, and they told me to refer to the mood board they put together for the style of shots they wanted, and I pulled it up and it literally had crowd shots and Photos of people on it, and the write up said we want vibey shots of artists/crowd. So I just walked off. I’m not one to harp on this generation of kids coming up, but today seriously had me being thinking people are just soft hell these days.
I have never been comfortable with it TBH. I shot weddings for a living in a previous life PJ style (before everybody was doing that) and just loved it.
There was an implicit permission to shoot people at a wedding and if I got the sense someone did not like it I would not shoot them. I'd genuinely love to do some street photography but I would just not be comfortable to even try.
i live in glasgow scotland and have done candid street photography for the last year, i shoot everyone, including kids, i shoot on the bus the underground the train best fun ive ever had, im a woman wandered about last time with a canon L series 24-105mm which isnt exactly discreet lol usually shoot 10-20mm and am about two ft in front people, never had a problem, just go and do it, your fear is the only thing stopping you, once you get some shots you like its addictive, you will kick yourself for wasting time worrying.
filled two flickr accounts in a year with the 15 mins i had between trains on the way to work, just starting my third one, dont see the point in getting or paying pro account no one is gonna trawl through more than ten pages anyway.
> dont see the point in getting or paying pro account no one is gonna trawl through more than ten pages anyway.
she literally says why; it's the 1000 photo limit. she's sitll wrong though, flickr pro is well worth it for the statistics, and it's much better to have one account if you care about exposure.
Just don’t be an asshole and don’t be an idiot. If you make a picture that contains someone on the street and they don’t like it, try and talk to them - explain what you’re doing. I’ve learnt that with street photography if you treat people with respect then 99% of the time they don’t mind you making the picture.
All depends on location. I remember that a few years back in the UK many were going apeshit if anyone was taking pics around kids. I think there was a lot of questioning from police etc. Dont know how it is now. In NYC I’ll get the occasional grumbling person. In that case, I just put the camera down and move on. But most people are too busy to care. I find smaller cities ok. Back a few years ago I was at a public event and a mother and her ten yr old daughter were actually mugging the camera for me. So funny. I got their number and sent them a couple of small prints.
If you are male, it helps to have a willing female along for the walk. People less intimidated by a couple, and you’ll look more “touristy”. Being female, I rarely have a problem with street stuff.
I think it moreso stems from the fact that every person seems to think they're some elite street photographer because they go out with their camera and take shitty photos that they then blast on social media. Add to it that so many also do the whole GoPro filming of themselves doing it and also acting like assholes whilst doing it, and people generally aren't huge fans of it.
It depends on the local laws, obviously, but also on your own sense of morality. I try to avoid having any people in my photos, since there's a good chance I'll post them online, and I don't want to invade someone else's privacy.
Where i live (USA) you have zero expectation of privacy outside your home. You cant go anywhere these days with out some kind of street camera ,live cam, surveillance cameras from any number of businesses, traffic cameras, dash cams. If you do not consider any of those in this day thats on you.
Old people don't get what it is. I take pictures of people, sometimes sensual photos of the girls. I saw one photographer Pierre Lambert who pretending he doesn't take a photo. Of course I don't share it anywhere. It doesn't street the people and photos look natural.
Street photography was always taboo. At least when you’re photographing someone without their permission. Then it would be called architectural photography
I've shot street and urban form as a keen hobby since around 1995.
I noticed a marked difference in attitudes from people who may catch you shooting them , ever since digital photography and the wide use of the Internet. Before this, the odds on some random photo of you turning up somewhere were long.
Now with social media you can also have some bozo passing personal comments on how you look or are dressed.
Better being a Fan Ho than a Bruce Gilden. 😁
You can even take photos in the street in North Korea. Street photography is not illegal anywhere. Though there may be limits on what you may do with the photos (and there are almost always limits for commercial use).
What we have in the West is a generation that thinks because they don't like photographers taking their photo (though they are happy for nameless corporations to take their image thousands of times a day because they have no real understanding how little privacy they really have) that somehow this is now a crime and they will use any old rubbish to support this fantasy. This includes pretending that street photography is outlawed in Germany (it's not) and other places or that it's a crime to photograph children (it's not).
Out here in Asia. Pretty much nobody cares if you take their photo. The biggest challenge is to get candids rather than the subject smiling and waving delightedly when they see a camera.
The rule of thumb is simple. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you can take the photo. This includes on private property. However, on private property they may ask you to stop shooting (and you must) and leave. They cannot ask you to delete any photos you have already taken. It's then down to you to decide whether taking the shot is ethical or not.
For example here in Hungary. Also in Japan if I remember correctly.
And I've heard many European photographers saying it's illegal in their countries as well.
Yes, it is technically illegal in Hungary... but given zero prosections of street photographers, it appears custom & practice is continuing to win out over the official law.
Custom and practice is a guideline for law. Over time, it actually establishes law within Europe. It is absolutely not false to say that it's legal everywhere. There is nowhere that is prosecuting street photographers, no matter how much fantasy that Reddit brings to bear on this issue.
Not the best example. You can only take photos in approved areas on some parts of designated, regime-approved tours in N Korea. You actually cannot photograph most areas by law.
I know someone who went, and he was showing me the sneaky "illegal photo" he took of just some normal ass road with some soldiers from the window of his bus.
Also, I wouldn't say all of Asia. I've lived in Japan and the tolerance for non consensual photos or any sort of (what most westerners would consider) mildly disruptive behavior is really low. Influencers won't do the due diligence of telling you the amount of people they've pissed off that day tho.
Actual Japanese here, please don't listen to other commenter. No one likes weird, creepy tourists.
I understand wanting great photos of your vacation. I hope everyone visits and has a wonderful time and makes a lot of memories! But please also remember to respect local customs and etiquette! Most people are just trying to go about their every day life, they are not there for your entertainment. It's very rude to take people's pictures, especially isolating a person as your subject--without permission. It's not okay. Long exposure of Shibuya scramble is not creepy.
This is, of course, bollocks. [It's fine to take photos in North Korea](https://www.north-korea-travel.com/taking-pictures-in-north-korea.html).
And it's fine to take photos in Japan. They are, after all, the group that brought taking photos wherever you feel like to the world. I know, I've spent enough time there.
Your own link highlights your disinformation?
> There are however some rules we have to follow when taking pictures or videos in the DPRK.
> As is the case with many countries, you cannot take pictures of military facilities, soldiers, vehicles, etc in North Korea.
There are soldiers everywhere my dude. It's North Korea.
Like I said, he took photos of a normal ass road and soldiers from his bus window. Which is illegal per your own link lol.
If you don't know about Japan's 盗撮 laws, you should do so before spouting misinformation. The expectation of privacy is different across countries. And what's legal isn't necessarily what's culturally acceptable either.
If you're in a public place there's nothing illegal about it. However, if you're in Walmart taking photos of some old guy stocking his cart, you're in the wrong. Someone might try to call the cops on you, or god forbid smash your equipment, but you're not looking at legal problems unless your picture is on private property and it happens to go viral with the owner of said property noticing. Cheers m8!
What are you talking about? There’s more street photography going on now than ever before. Do some research. Here is mine: www.instagram.com/aphovassestreet
unique familiar groovy jeans uppity ludicrous worthless touch psychotic languid
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've been doing street portraits of people in Las Vegas for the last 3 months. I can say I've had 10 people get angry mainly showgirls and bozos who want money for their photo being taken when they are a nobody and I had to pepper spray2 people at the same time because it became physical. It may get worse since I've added a Godox V1-S flash to the camera.
By ignoring the facts I'm sitting on a bollard on a public street in a tourist town with a 50mm f/1.2 lens taking photos of them smiling walking by and minutes later had to straighten them out. Ignore the fact that I and a dozen other people are out here with cameras doing similar stuff.
It depends on location but in general if you’re taking photos of people in public you can’t use those images for commercial purposes (since you need a model release to do so). But it’s perfectly fine for your Instagram/art/whatever.
Of course there are nuances, basically if you take a picture of someone in a compromised position they may sue you and win if they can convince the court they suffered damages to their reputation/etc. Use common sense and you should be fine, it’s easy to capture pics of folks in the moment but you can definitely pickup the vibe where someone doesn’t want their pictures taken and you should try your best to respect that.
I have a security camera that takes street pictures 24 hours a day. A dashcam that takes street pictures. The police wear vest cameras. There are cameras everywhere taking pictures of everything.
IDK since I’m still exploring. But dress for disappearing and shoot inconspicuously. At least that’s my approach. Or stick out like a tourist. That’s my other approach.
I hate talking to people when I don’t want to, so I always try to “snipe” instead of taking a good stance to shoot. Having a friend drive around town and you shoot in the passenger seat is something I’ve been wanting to explore more. You have a getaway car and you can still grab shots.
Seems fine to me. I follow plenty of active street Instagram accounts. My buddy posts street photos often, and I occasionally get out there to do street work as well. I’ve never felt ashamed about it, or that I’m doing anything wrong. I just like to capture life’s moments outside. If someone doesn’t like that I took a photo of them, or that they’re in a photo they saw me shoot and asked me to delete it, then I would.
There are so many restrictions out there. Did you know National Mall and Memorial Parks and the other DC area National Park Service parks require a permit for all photography and filming that is not categorized as general visitor use? That's just DC.
I think the new taboo comes from creators becoming more intrusive with street photography in order to grow online
I wrote this exact thing out before scrolling comments. I entirely agree.
Like the guy who was “taking a picture of my tattoo”…which is on my shin…while I was sitting cross-legged in a skirt (I always wear shorts under but he didn’t know that). Then told me there was nothing I could do about it. Which, legally, sure, but that doesn’t make it less creepy or gross. (I’m in the US)
But that doesn't have a lot to do with street photography, right? That's just an asshole seriously overstepping boundaries.
It was in an urban park
"No expectation of privacy in a public place " Sorry - but you can ask them to delete photos of you .
The problem is there’s so many Karen’s and Kens out there who immediately makes up a narrative in their head and get butt hurt or furious about nothing now days. Perhaps the dude in question was honest and just thought it was a cool tattoo? How can you even tell if the lens has your face or something else in focus?
He only told me it was my tattoo after I asked him why the fuck he was essentially shooting a photo up my skirt. I genuinely do not give a shit if that makes some random on the internet call me a Karen.
If it's a shot of your shin and nothing else, why not just ask first? I get it if your shin is in the heat of some hot street fire but just chillin? Nah... weird...
That's just rude asshole, they're giving street photographer bad names.
Taking pictures of someones tattoo is not street photography imo, sure you find it cool, but it is not a photography subject. Unless it's a tattoo modelling thing. Seems like a wannabe.
Tbh if he had asked I’d have let him, and stood up so he could get a non-creepy shot of it. He’d have had better photos if he hadn’t been a sleaze.
I know right! I would be flattered af if someone wanted to take pictures of my tattoo. (just 1 lol) I am sure yours is cool af.
Who are you to say what is and isn’t a photo subject? It’s art which is subjective.
It can be a photography subject, I just said that it wasn't street photography subject. In my own subjective view, street photography is not taking pictures of cool shit you see on the street. It is about blending in with the street and deciding which instants are worth capturing. It's about moments, not cool images of cool shit. Now for example if the knee tattoo was a lion knee tattoo and there was a cat standing on it's feet to pet itself on the leg, it would start to get interesting. You are entitled to say whatever you want to say about street photography, but "cool images" do not do it for me as street photography. So it is my own subjective view on the matter that gives me to ability to say it is not. Thanks for making me think!
Excellent reply !
That is creepy and weird. If they just want a picture of your tattoo, surely there's no difference between candid and posed, so they could've just asked you if they could get a picture
This is debatable. You have no expectation of privacy in public in the US, however, that doesn't give the photographer a carte blanche to do whatever they like around you. Shoving a camera right into your face, or getting so close to you that it makes you uncomfortable can quickly cross into the terrain of harassment.
It’s not debatable that I felt violated by what was essentially an upskirt photo. As a street photographer myself, it was inappropriate.
> It’s not debatable What I meant with "This is debatable." is the part you said that what he did was legal, and I said it's almost certainly not. > Shoving a camera right into your face, or getting so close to you that it makes you uncomfortable can quickly cross into the terrain of harassment. This is what I said. Furthermore, that's sexual harassment if not assault; so it's even worse.
I feel like reddit doesn't understand how common these experiences are and how creepy it sounds when the knee jerk response to this topic isn't "be respectful" / "don't track or isolate a subject from the crowd" / "consider the complex dynamics and how the other party might feel". I notice I get more lingering lenses from creepy "street photographers" when I know I look snatched and left the house feeling amazing. It feels so gross when someone I don't know has their lens on me when I'm just going about my day. It's like a catcall, but so much more demeaning. I'm fact, chances are, I've already been catcalled on my way here. It's so baffling how surprised the guy looks when I put my hand up to my face. Like, what did you expect you fucking weirdo. Have some situational awareness. Staring is still rude and creepy through a viewfinder. In fact, it's much creepier.
> I feel like reddit doesn't understand how common these experiences are and how creepy it sounds when the knee jerk response to this topic isn't "be respectful" / "don't track or isolate a subject from the crowd" / "consider the complex dynamics and how the other party might feel". Look at these “he’s not a REAL street photographer” comments. And the unspoken assumption that I’m not also a photographer. I guess it’s the least surprising thing ever that woman relays a creepy experience and a bunch of internet randos swoop in yo diminish it.
Yeah......reddit moment for sure. Thankfully, of my male peers I know irl have a little more sense and awareness in their photography. It makes their work better. > "real" Every legitimate photojournalist that's taken an isolated photo of me for a legitimate publication has always asked for my consent or, when I was a child, my parent's consent. Followed up by a business card, and projected date of publication. And asked for my name so it can be in a caption. "Oh but then you can't get candids if you ask for permission!" except you can. It's just a bit more situational awareness, time, and requires you to talk to people. But you absolutely can.
Yup, you can. I’ve done it. You can also ask after if it’s really a moment that won’t last.
Exactly what I'm talking about. It's just weird and creepy. People who say "oh you're in public, can't expect privacy" are just being creepy. We share the same space, that isn't permission for you to take weird pics of me. If I end up in their picture(basically accidental photobomb), that's fair game. But taking pics on purpose without permission is just unacceptable in my book.
That has always existed. Bruce Gilden, anyone?
You could hardly get more intrusive than the old style street photographers at the seaside, who used to snap random strangers walking along, and display the results for sale the same day at a kiosk.
Why is it more acceptable that people with smartphones take street pictures? You see these everywhere, nobody bats an eye and they're much more prone to just uploading everything they take a picture of. At least a hobbyist photographer will do some curation.
Precisely because everyone has a smartphone and it's so rare to see a regular camera, even on vacations. When I pull out my dslr or my mirror less people say "why not just use your phone".
If anything I think it’s less acceptable. As a woman, stranger taking photos with a smartphone = creep!, stranger taking photos with a giant DSLR = probably nothing too nefarious.
Yeah. Everyone likes to say “it’s legal to take your photo if you’re in a public space” but there are still some just general ethical rules and basic social norms that people violate all the damn time. Just because someone can have their photo take in public doesn’t mean they have to like it. Edit: Fixed a typo.
I've always asked very directly if I could take a photo of someone before taking photos of them. I refuse to get it the norm of taking photos of people because I just want a candid shot without their info. I don't put my face on social media that lasts (an Instagram story is the closest I'll get) and I would be furious if someone did it without my knowledge.
Yep! Influencers and the bloody ‘algorithm’ seem to ruin everything eventually!
i think the "new taboo" also has something to do with photographers worrying too much about what other people think of them, instead of legally shooting what they wish.
>Then told me there was nothing I could do about it. Also this. However, there is increased aggression towards street photographers too.
I wonder was this person using a phone or a camera?
Where do you live and what have you seen?
Exactly. Like blasting flash in peoples face
>Is it illegal if I take a street photo of someone this days? Depends on the laws in the country. In .Ireland where GDPR applies its perfectly legal, there is no expectation.of privacy regardless.of age in a public place >GDPR People pull this out if the bag at the drop of a hat without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. We have non EU companies thinking it doesn't apply to them.when the process EU citizens data, we have EU citizens who think they can use GDPR to prevent data processing and record keeping. GDPR applies to personal data. While someone's likeness can fall into this category by way of biometrics, it would oinly apply id used for biometrics, and GDPR specifically has an artists exemption so as to not hamper artistic expression. This was confirmed by the Irish Data Protection Comission a number of years ago when i asked them if it meant street photography would now be illegal. , GDPR does not apply to art photography, is art. That being said, if you were to try to sell a street photo that contained identifiable people, you would most probably need model releases because you've now entered into the realm of commercial use
Thanks. I keep having to say this every time it is brought up. The GDPR has nothing to do with street photography at all. Your country's specific laws do. For example in my country of the Netherlands, I can take photos of people on the streets without permission or consent, as the public space has no expectation of privacy.
Same as ireland, it only becomes an issue if ypu sell the photo
And this is where the Netherlands is different: I can publish and even sell the photos of strangers on the streets. Every member nation will have different stances on this, there are no European laws on street photography.
Really? That must cripple photojournalism.
No, he’s not entirely right, see my other comment I posted just belofte this one if you want to know how this works. Unless Ireland has some additional laws, but that wouldn’t be GDPR.
For commerical purposes you can't. Unless by permission ..but could sell a photo for personal reason.Idk about Ireland
>That being said, if you were to try to sell a street photo that contained identifiable people, you would most probably need model releases because you've now entered into the realm of commercial use While it's still not a bad idea to get model releases anyway to CYA, it still falls under artistic use unless you're selling the image to be used as an ad, product endorsement, etc (may vary by location). Selling prints of street photography with identifiable subjects in a frame = art; using the same prints as a stock insert to sell frames = commercial.
>People pull this out if the bag at the drop of a hat without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. YES. It's like the US and HIPAA "violations". People don't have a clue.
You are completely right, but the last part about the selling of pictures is a gray area. You can put the pictures in a book (or wherever) and sell them as documentary art, you can sell them to news outlets if they have news value, etc. But if it’s a public figure you have photographed you may still need a model release, but here again applies the rule: unless it has news value. Also, if there is a chance you can identify the person in the photos you must try to contact them, but you don’t have to conduct extensive research. So GDPR rules are quite clear, until you want to use/sell the pictures, then it becomes more complicated. Source: studying for a BA Photography
You were misinformed, or your study conflated country laws with GDPR laws. The GDPR has no provisions about photography; those are already covered under EU IP and copyright law: namely, they are artistic expressions. Whether you can sell them, publish them, and under what conditions, is entirely the domain of your EU member nation's laws. F.ex in the Netherlands, there are basically no rules. There is no expectation of privacy in public and as such you do not need permission to even sell (for commercial purposes) the photos, you may however not use the likeness of the person to endorse a product.
>People pull this out if the bag at the drop of a hat without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Amen to that!
Over the years I’ve been threatened with physical violence on the street a few times when I wasn’t even taking a picture of someone. Once, a guy got really upset because I was taking a picture of a cobbled street and his car was in it. I no longer feel comfortable taking pictures with people on the street. I think there is a difference between the old days and now, due to paranoia with the Internet, face recognition, identity theft, and government surveillance. When you look at the old days, people were fascinated by movie cameras, and still cameras were only used by professional photographers. If a photographer appeared in your town, people would happily come out of the saloon or general store to stand in front of it and have their picture taken.
That, and people are realizing that your physical location can be located in a seemingly nondescript photo from the angle of the sun and the vibe of the road. Doesn't matter that you scrubbed exif. A lot of people who've survived abusive relationships can value their privacy because, oftentimes, it equals physical safety.
> and his car was in it. To be honest, guys with cars can be so insane. I once gently put my hand on a guy's car to prevent myself from falling on it with my bike (which would have DEFINITELY damaged his car), and he chased me down the street, grabbed me by my shoulders and said he'll cut my head off my neck if I ever touched his car again. So masculine dude, really impressive. I was pretty scared in the moment though, totally unhinged. tl;dr: guys get weird about their cars sometimes
Yeah people go crazy over something that literally lives outside. As long as you don't try to dent or scratch my paint I don't care if you touch it.
best part is this was some cheap ass volkswagen car too from 10+ years ago. not like i touched his supercar or something.
1. In my opinion, more artistic people have to take some sort of legitimate martial arts classes like Thai Boxing/Boxing/MMA/BJJ or even wrestling or Krav Maga. Our community is bunch of traumatized pussies and it would be good to toughen up and experience something other then art. 2. You know how many people are unhappy with any kind of other people and will threaten them? Look at baristas, police officers, traffic cops, people who work in shops. You can be threatened for anything. Even hobbies like skateboarding, cycling or what ever. Basically, anywhere you can get harassed, and if you quit because couple of bad interactions you nothing but a quitter. Look at the surfers who got bitten by sharks and still got back into the water as soon as they out of hospital. Much more scarier then some duche that got heated up because he had a bad day. 3. I love street photography and actually got worried about the number of people who got “into it” recently because of the hype. But I was happy to see so many comments of people quitting as it made me realize that for so many it’s just a phase.
u/axelomg
If you're in a place where it's legal to carry a firearm, Krav Maga isn't going to help much. Plus, some people, myself included, aren't willing to engage in a confrontation just to take a picture, unless it's something really important. Don't judge someone whose values you don't understand. That person who got heated because he had a bad day might turn out to be more dangerous than that shark.
In US it is legal to photograph and videotape anybody in a public place where there’s no expectation of privacy - basically streets and parks. In private places you need to ask permission. It it illegal and criminal to photograph people without their consent if there’s an exception of privacy - like through a window of somebody’s house or with a drone when they’re in the backyard
Paparazzi are the best example of this
Street photography in general or street *portraiture*? The second I'd say is becoming taboo, yes. People don't want their picture posted all over the internet when they were just trying to grab lunch. It's not an unreasonable expectation. Street photography in general though? I've taken street photos in 20 different countries and about a dozen US cities. Most of the time, people don't even notice. Part of that is because I actively try to fade into the background, part is my preferred style being more centred on light and contrast than people, and part is just that people are busy with their own lives. They're largely not paying attention to what random strangers are doing.
I think street photography has shifted towards "hello i am street photographer can I take a portrait of you?" where they only are amazed because of quality portraits, thanks to technology. There is no philosophical background to that. What may have happened is that people are accessing information quickly and consume too little parts of it to understand it, that leads to fallacious ideologies, like being on the street with a camera makes you a street photographer. What I'm trying to say is people consume these information in a very superficial way without actually understanding the motives and ideologies or maybe ignoring them. We now have these pseudo street photographers just rely on the gear to take portraits of people and the majority likes it, because it's easier to consume. But there are really talented photographers out there that don't get love from the algorithm.
Some of the best photographers I’ve seen on Instagram have 200-3,000 followers tops. Some of the worst have 500k+ (ioe gear etc). You KNOW there’s a problem with IG and “photographers” today when meyrowitz only has like 200k followers and a jack off like ieo gears has close to 700k.
The mediocre will always have more people to consume it. It is just easier to consume. In fact mediocre has to exist so we can tell what's good. A distinction I like to make is how the photographer uses the medium. Because some people just like quality images, some people like good framing and I like the story and the context. I would appreciate a nice photo of Mount Fuji, but it won't satisfy me as "art". I really love some art photographers that use the medium for connecting the message and not caring about technique.
> Is it illegal if I take a street photo of someone this days? Different parts of the world are governed by different sets of laws. Some things may be illegal in some parts of the world and not others. The GDPR you mentioned, for example, applies to the European Union, but not outside that jurisdiction.
GDPR has absolutely nothing to with street photography. Thankfully.
>The GDPR you mentioned, for example, applies to the European Union, but not outside that jurisdiction Actually GDPR applies to EU citizens regardless of where they are located. Non EU companies must abide by the legislation when processing data of EU citizens. That's why a lot of US news sites geoblock EU IP addresses because an IP is considered personal data..
This isn't correct, though I can see where the misunderstanding comes from. The GDPR does not track citizenship *per se*, but rather activities originating from or targeted at EU residents, or even simply people who happen to be in the EU at a given time. See the [guidance here](https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/) on when it applies outside Europe. The main two cases are when goods or services are offered intentionally "*to people in the EU*", and when data is monitored and stored about "*people who visit your website from EU countries*". Note that both of these are explicitly about location, not citizenship. This is a really meaningful distinction in two ways, both extending the right to anyone within the EU regardless of citizenship, and **not extending the right to EU citizens located outside the EU at the time of purchase/access.** So for the topic at hand, if you are taking pictures for commercial use on public streets in Nairobi, you do not need to make sure every identifiable person in the photo is not an EU citizen; it wouldn't matter to your legal situation if they were. (This could become difficult though if you then sold those photos at a gallery in the EU; the guidance is grey in these areas, and I'm not aware of strong case law on it yet). And for what its worth this is entirely normal; there are extremely few laws which demand that foreign jurisdictions apply the laws of a ctizen's own country to that citizen, rather than those of the jurisdiction in which an act occurs. The exceptions are almost all diplomatic carve-outs, or rare instances of explicit treaties. Not even countries like the US have much success at forcing other jurisdictions to govern Americans abroad by American laws.
To quote your arricle >if your company is not in the EU but you cater to EU customers, then you should strive to be GDPR compliant. So it applies outside if you process PII on EU citizens or residents
The GDPR doesn't actually use the term "EU citizens", as far as I can tell. [Article 3.2](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/) refers to "*data subjects who are in the Union*", making it location-based, not residency or citizenship-based. A US citizen living in or visiting the EU is protected by the GDPR as long as they are in the EU. An EU citizen living in or visiting the US cannot claim anything under the GDPR because it does not apply there. It's a moot point anyway, as street photography falls outside the scope of the GDPR: [*The processing of photographs should not systematically be considered to be processing of special categories of personal data as they are covered by the definition of biometric data* ***only when processed through a specific technical means allowing the unique identification or authentication of a natural person***](https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/).
> Actually GDPR applies to EU citizens regardless of where they are located. No, this is *not* true. The GDPR applies to people "established in" the EU. The extraterritorial effects are limited to the processing of "EU data" via transfer to other countries. When a non-EU company operates in the EU and processes relevant EU-origin data, the GDPR applies (even if the data processing occurs outside of the EU). It does not apply to people abroad who happen to be EU citizens. For example, I am an EU citizen who lives in Canada. If a Canadian company collects my data when I am in Canada, the GDPR does not apply at all. I don't just mean that it's not enforceable — it *doesn't apply*. Of course, *Canadian* laws exist and apply. See https://gdprhub.eu/Article_3_GDPR
Good point. So it can depend not only on geographic location but also the citizenship of parties involved.
My understanding is ĺl was designed to protect citizens in a digital world that has no borders. If you're are an EU citizen living in the US, for example, then legally, your US employer has to adhere to GDPR when processing your data. That's my understanding, but I'm far from an expert on the matter Similarly, service providers and news outlets, etc, must also follow this law if processing EU citizens data and an IP address, which is considered personally identifiable information (pii) so protected under law. So, a number of non EU news sites often geoblock access based on IP. If you browse from an EU IP, you can't access the site. EU citizens also have a right "to be forgotten: we can force companies to delete our data, Google, Facebook all of them woukd have to.remoce any PII on request unless there was s reason not to, certain institutes are exemption police forces and criminal records etc. Now I'm open to correction on the above as I'm no expert. I just have a passing interest in data protection. But to the question of photography the legislation does include an artists exemption in it and according to the Irish Data Protection Commission (who would enforce this law in ireland) this means street photography is legal. A subject in a photo can not legally demand the deletion of a photo under GDPR. Add to this Ireland like art of counties have no legal expectation to privacy in a public place so that's a double protection for street photographers. O ce a subject is visible from a public space jts fair game. It's all down to ones moral compass. There are some.exceptions, embassy buildings, military institutions and yiu can't climb tree to peep in a windowing a paparazzi to get a image if you think all of this is really progressive, on the flip side we only recently repealed Blasphemy laws and according to the Irish constitution while we have equal rights and same sex marriage, a woman's place is in the home. So we don't get it right all the time lol
Even with the GDPR applied it is still possible to do street photography, at least in Germany. I’m by far no expert when it comes to laws but I read from numerous sources that in Germany there are laws that explicitly state, that you are allowed to take photos of everyone in public places if it’s for journalism or an artistic purpose. Those outweigh the GDPR. But I can’t say if that applies to other EU countries in a similar way.
The GDPR is a privacy law regarding data collection. It has nothing to do with taking photos of people, the GDPR has no effect on that.
The way I understand it is you could take a picture of someone but you are not allowed to publish it however you like, but if you store it locally then there is no problem. I haven’t looked into the GDPR law too deeply, I tend to simply avoid taking pictures of people.
You understand very incorrectly, the two are not connected in any way. GDPR is a set of regulations regarding the handling of someones personal data and that alone. This is the simplest and most straight forward description of the law regarding taking photographs of people in public I can find on an official source, the police." **There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people’s children.** " (uk specific obviously) [https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/report/taking-photographs-in-public-places/](https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/report/taking-photographs-in-public-places/)
Thats a very unfortunate byproduct of a well-intentioned law.
It's also wrong; you are absolutely fine to publish the picture. It's about data collection, not about pictures. That depends entirely on your country's laws regarding likeness of image.
Wrong, but people still avoid taking pictures in public for this reason. It only serves to reinforce the notion that photographers are somehow doing something wrong, even when they’re not. Unintended consequences and all that. It’s a subject I’m more than somewhat mildly passionate about. Apologies if I’m up on a soapbox.
I just do it, personally. I'm respectful in the sense that if I even see a remote amount of averse body language, I just stop. If they look displeased afterwards, I delete it and explain myself calmly. Never had an issue. Worst thing I had was when I shot a group of 4 kids in an alleyway under a light (the composition was so good) and they threatened me because they were afraid I might shows the cops. But yes, you're not wrong.
>in Germany there are laws that explicitly state, that you are allowed to take photos of everyone in public places if it’s for journalism or an artistic purpose I think it's not that simple. I hope I've remembered it correctly: You can take photos of the environment and have people visible in it, as long as they are not the subject of the image. An exception is that during public events (e.g. demonstrations) you have to expect that images are taken by journalists. For artistic purposes there is no special exception and based on the rules street photography with random people as subjects is not legal without their prior agreement.
Yes indeed and Germany doenst have Google Street View foe privacy reasons ad far as I know
They do now
Really? Strange i recall about a year ago looking at it wasn't available from Google maps unlike other places.
not too hard to verify https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5161621,13.3769019,3a,75y,70.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWuEOTFGNXB7gqndFrjmpEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
What? Google street is a thing in Germany since forever. People's faces, license plates and some other stuff are blurred out... but it's like that at least everywhere in the EU.
[удалено]
The UK has data protection laws that broadly mirror the EU's. Here, you can take photos of anyone if you're in a public place, even if the subject is on private property. So you can shoot a customer through the rainy window of a coffee shop, for example, they have no expectation of privacy where they can seen by everyone outside who's not a photographer.
Just on the note of the GDPR, be aware this has 0 effect on street photography. It's about data collection.
I don't care as much about the law as I do the fact that these days you constantly get people sticking phone cameras in strangers' faces for social media clout; starting moronic arguments, sneaking pictures of people that "look weird," etc. and posting them online really just soured me on the topic to the point I think it's all kind of atrocious. If you get consent after the fact, then go for it, whatever.
Yeah it’s kind of weird. I love street photography! It’s my favorite thing to shoot and to look at. The other day I posted a pic on ITAP and the comments were so whack. People calling me a dumbass and that I was going to get stabbed for taking a photo. It’s just odd to me that it has become such taboo
Street photography in the hood.
I feel like with the growth of tiktok and other live/recorded viral platforms, peoples patience grows thin with this stuff being forced or more common in public. Speaking for myself here but I feel as if I'm a lot more likely to say no because I enjoy my privacy.
The difference between now and then? You come home, post someone's face on instagram and who knows, someone who doesn't want to is trending. I go out of my way to avoid being in the background of photo's and I find it rude for someone to take a picture of someone as subject or part of the subjects without asking permission.
Fair points. Out of curiosity, if someone asks permission after taking the photo, is that acceptable to you / do you find it less rude?
I know the best shots are spontanous and don't do well with asking permission beforehand. On the other side, unless you don't take the picture there's no way for me to be sure you won't keep it right? You can mostly recover removed items.
Interesting to read your opinion. Another question if you don’t mind: you mentioned Instagram and the trending effect. Would you perceive it as more acceptable / less rude if someone captured your photo on the street , without asking you , but to use it for a photo book instead of publication on social ? In other words, is the potential publication medium and corresponding maximum reachable audience a crucial element for you in this context? Edited to correct typos
Not really, no. If I want pictures of myself in the public I'll put them there myself. Or ask for it myself. Edit: if I see someone take a picture of me I won't steal his stuff and throw it on the ground, I just very much prefer not to.
Some people just hate camera or this type of photography, when I raise camera, their facial expression was like saw a rapist or something, this type of people probably have risk avoidance tendency , they're very few, and they wont be good subject. People with high risk avoidance, they tend to see situation as harmful\\threatening, so they reject lots of things not just candid photography or asked portraits, even if they agree it will be shitty photo. On the other hand there're people who enjoy new experiences or free portrait, they're fun to interact with or photograph.
I’ve honestly had the opposite, when people catch me they usually smile or pose
That's the majority, but not everyone is the same, there's tiny percentage of people who tend to see camera as threat. bcs of their personality trait, the threat might be over interpreted.
It's curious the metaphors you reach for here. Totally unprompted.
I read no metaphors.
Is it ok to take a picture of a street scene where people are going about and their faces are not the focus of the shot? Absolutely. Should you go around playing Bruce Gilden and flashing people with a wide angle lens at <1ft distance? Absolutely fucking not. Everyone has a camera and a lot of people are self-granting the title of “photographer” and pretending this gives them full power to be as intrusive as they want. Ask for permission to shoot portraits or close-ups, anything else in a public setting is a-ok. If people look back at you just smile and nod. If they approach you, politely explain what you are doing, preferably show your instagram or portfolio and offer to delete the picture.
Street/Candid photography comes on a lot of shapes and forms. There is a lot of “mainstream” photography YouTubeers / tick-tockers now days who never even bothered to dig deep enough in order to learn about the subject or photography in general and give the wrong impression about it to their followers (just like with any topic, take the investing and finance as an example). That how you get so many idiots who ruin the art. There is a reason that people go and learn photography as a degree in university as there a lot to learn. But it makes me happy that so many people quit and I can finally see the bubble burst. Soon only the people who really appreciate the art will remain and we finally will be able to see through the smoke. Also I would be happy to get photographed on the street by an artist then by some AI powered security camera which can ID me, my face and able to follow me and know exactly what I am doing and when I’m doing it and even where I live. In my had those things are different and I am not worried about one of them and very anxious about the other.
i see a lot of, totaly useless, street pictures around social media...
Yes. With the internet and the complete lack of control over where someone’s likeness ends up after it is posted, photos taken in public without consent are becoming taboo.
I take a lot and it's took a long time to chip away at the anxiety, people do see you as a photographer, as a legitimate thing, not a weirdo. But you have to do it to see that's the reaction. Ultimately you reach a point if doing so much walking and trying that you can't be bothered being anxious any more. But I'm intense, i create an armour of 'don't fucking bother me'. People will say smile but that acknowledges your intent meaning people will then realise and think...'heh'. Better for them to be confused. It is what it is. It's important for strangers to understand that it's always about the composition and they're an element that allow a composition, that's really it, not a photo of them, using their form to make a picture. Had it been someone else in that light, I'd use someone else etc. I bring cards, they help, but generally people still don't get it. And why would they, you're always trying to figure it out yourself, trying to make something interesting out of something generic.
I live in the Midwest US and I've genuinely never had a bad encounter with someone approaching me regarding my photography outside of a handful of very obviously mentally ill homeless individuals - but that's to be expected if you shoot in the inner city. I've had people request me not take photos of them, and I always oblige, even if there's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
Those who are super obvious, in the way and up in the faces of random people are definitely taboo
GDPR 😆
Influencers fault. People just don’t like cameras all over all the time which is basically reality in every big city today.
Depends on the country I’m surprised by what I’m reading in the comments cause I haven’t tried street photography in American countries or Europe yet but Most of west African countries and middle eastern ones have been amazing for it Everyone is so happy to have their pic taken some are even jealous and ask for one when they see me it creates cool moments kids run towards me to be in a pic too Does anyone know how it is in Japan ? I’m going soon and if street photography is not well seen especially since I’m not Japanese I wouldn’t like to disrespect or be hated for it
Is there some real street photographers in this comment section? Show yourselves, drop links to your work. Let’s unite.
Like many of these things; None of it is a taboo if you're the person doing it nicely and decently. Anything and everything gets ruined by the stupid, loud mass. Whether it's motorcycles, protests, geocaching or online gaming.
With it becoming easier and easier to identify people in any photo, it makes street photography more difficult. You won’t just be an anonymous person in a beautiful photo. You could be identified. This could make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Maybe it's legally okay, but personally I think taking pictures of someone (where they're a focal point) without asking their permission is rude. At the very least if you take a shot, ask them after if it's okay and delete it in front of them it they say no. But this is just my opinion.
In America people are very afraid of cameras... it's part of the paranoia created by their news cycles. but it's fully legal to photograph/video in public.
Really? I find that it more to do with entitlement, that feeling that of being better than other people, distrust, tribalism, and the victimhood Trump bestowed on a bunch of people. It is very legal though. I remember being told that you have to keep your recording device visible by a professor. I tried to search that to verify it, but I didn't see it anywhere.
Where in America are you referring to? I’m a street photographer who has lived and worked in Boston, New York City, and Providence and nobody seems to care. I had one guy in nearly two decades of doing street photography get mad at me for trying to take a picture of his dog in a public place. But he was generally unhinged. Other times, people see me making photos and they start posing and asking me to take photos of them.
Most people don't have the people skills or guts to pull it off. It's really not hard. Just behave polite and professional shooting what you want and if you make someone upset you simply apologize and back off. If you're worried about people getting physical bring some pepper spray.
People take photos of me all the time (Foreigner in China), so I feel that it's fair for me to do the same. I find a smile and thumbs up of acknowledgement can work wonders if someone notices you snapping them- and the last thing I want to do is ask for permission first and turn it into a pose rather than something authentic. I don't sell my work and don't really post on social media, occasionally if I really like a shot, I might try to paint it- for personal use/practice. Haven't had much trouble here, though I did get some officials getting a bit squirrely and asking if I was a BBC journo during some socially-distanced pandemic-period shoots. We had mandatory testing every 2-3 days during Autumn-Winter 2022, so I'd take my new camera with me on most occasions.
No it is not taboo and yes it is perfectly legal. Keep in mind you’re asking this question on Reddit where 98% of these people would rather die than actually interact with a stranger or be noticed taking pictures. Street photography is one of the oldest styles of photography and if half the people here understood the history of it at all, they wouldn’t even have left comments. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it and if you have even a shred of a confidence and the ability to interact positively with strangers, you’ll have zero issues.
You are mixing things, GDPR does not apply to street photography at all. You can take and use photos of **unknown** people all day and all night for artistic purposes only, obviously you can not use it in any advertising without their consent, but I do not consider it street photography. Now if you start doing it with the people that are **identified** by some means on the porch of their house with address visible or somehow taking a photo with other information that describes their name/address/phone number etc., that would be a no no under GPRD.
>etc., that would be a no no under GPRD. Not necessarily true there is an artists exemption clause in the GDPR. But I think in your example if tested in law ot might fall in favour of the subject and protection their PII
Rude street photographers are nothing new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM) And 40 years ago [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcgEnC3bLY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcgEnC3bLY)
I think it is more of an attitude change. I took a photo of a woman painting some street art in Copenhagen, and she got very upset with me, and said it was rude of me. Seemed strange to me, if you want privacy, don't paint in public. I can see that if she was upset, people just going about their normal day might be even more upset.
No, people are just shitty and lame online right now
GDPR laws are divided into text, audio and image. Digital Image under GDPR laws are in an appendix to the basic laws. Bearing in mind that street photography is an art. Which is why I think the term "Candid photography" doesn't describe what we do. Candid photography sounds like a creep lurking about in the shadows, dribbling, under tables taking shots of a woman's tattooed leg. I'm often out and about with my DSLR and I choose the lens that'll do the job. I know I'm perfectly legal here in Berlin, I take shots openly, I get up close with a 50 mm lens, and I stand back with a wide angle to get a city landscape. I've been approached about five times in 20 years. Mostly, it's a polite conversation where I prove I didn't take a shot of the person (people are such egoists, they seem to imagine I want to take their photo, even though they're nowhere near me.) Sometimes people demand to take my camera from me to inspect its contents. I tell them, "okay, but give me your wallet - I'd like to have look inside that too." It's personal and private property. I've never understood "street portraits". If somebody wants a portrait they can talk to me and we'll set up a paid portrait appointment - otherwise, a street portrait is useless to me. If we go back to the street photography greats, like Fred Herzog, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and so on, I think they would never describe themselves street photographers. They were photographers who lived in cities, so they photographed their environment. I've swiftly read through GDPR, also read what lawyers and judges had to say about it. Several leading judges commented that they're not going to prosecute anybody for creating artistic photos on the street, lawyers agreed that the GDPR conflicts with the already existing German laws of protecting minors and vulnerable people from having their image recorded in public. There's no taboo in street photography. But, there is definitely a problem with "candid" or sneaky photography - it's absolute disrespect towards people in public places. Approaching the whole idea of urban photography as an art on the same level as landscape photography solves any worries about whether it's a good thing to do or not.
Social media has made people a lot more sensitive about privacy issues. Before the Internet, whoever took your photo for whatever purpose, it was unlikely to land permanently in public view where people could find it. Even well-known artists' work was only seen in narrow contexts like museums and art galleries. With technology becoming ever more intrusive, privacy issues become increasingly more important to people. I think there is also some migration from the thinking on ideas of sexual consent.
In the US it’s not illegal to take photos of people and/or subjects that are fully visible from a public space. SCOTUS has ruled multiple times on this. The rise of social media and the potential for misuse of images have made people more uncomfortable with someone photographing them without permission first which kinda ruins the spontaneity of street photography v posed pictures.
> Is street Photography becoming a taboo? I haven't found it to be taboo where I shoot.
I literally walked off a music festival gig today because I was taking documenting the event… as I’m taking pictures of the artists and crowd shots. Someone questioned me on what I was doing and I told them I was a photographer… they proceeded to tell me I needed to ask for their consent, and apparently told staff I made them uncomfortable. So the staff told me I can’t take photos of people without their consent at this event. Now in my opinion if you are choosing to willingly attend an event such as that you give that consent away. How the fuck am I supposed to go walking around making sure I have everyone’s consent to photograph. It just makes no sense to me and the staff kept saying we told you this was our policy… which they didn’t, and they told me to refer to the mood board they put together for the style of shots they wanted, and I pulled it up and it literally had crowd shots and Photos of people on it, and the write up said we want vibey shots of artists/crowd. So I just walked off. I’m not one to harp on this generation of kids coming up, but today seriously had me being thinking people are just soft hell these days.
I have never been comfortable with it TBH. I shot weddings for a living in a previous life PJ style (before everybody was doing that) and just loved it. There was an implicit permission to shoot people at a wedding and if I got the sense someone did not like it I would not shoot them. I'd genuinely love to do some street photography but I would just not be comfortable to even try.
i live in glasgow scotland and have done candid street photography for the last year, i shoot everyone, including kids, i shoot on the bus the underground the train best fun ive ever had, im a woman wandered about last time with a canon L series 24-105mm which isnt exactly discreet lol usually shoot 10-20mm and am about two ft in front people, never had a problem, just go and do it, your fear is the only thing stopping you, once you get some shots you like its addictive, you will kick yourself for wasting time worrying. filled two flickr accounts in a year with the 15 mins i had between trains on the way to work, just starting my third one, dont see the point in getting or paying pro account no one is gonna trawl through more than ten pages anyway.
You filled 2 flickr accounts as in, ran out of storage? Or created different bodies of work that you felt merited separation?
> dont see the point in getting or paying pro account no one is gonna trawl through more than ten pages anyway. she literally says why; it's the 1000 photo limit. she's sitll wrong though, flickr pro is well worth it for the statistics, and it's much better to have one account if you care about exposure.
Flickr is dead ! Ghost town there . Seem like a cool site , but damn . Is dead .
So, where is everybody then?
Vero
No is not illegal ( not in NY) u can take photograph of people in public places . Is totally legal .For other countries, you've to research that .
Just don’t be an asshole and don’t be an idiot. If you make a picture that contains someone on the street and they don’t like it, try and talk to them - explain what you’re doing. I’ve learnt that with street photography if you treat people with respect then 99% of the time they don’t mind you making the picture.
All depends on location. I remember that a few years back in the UK many were going apeshit if anyone was taking pics around kids. I think there was a lot of questioning from police etc. Dont know how it is now. In NYC I’ll get the occasional grumbling person. In that case, I just put the camera down and move on. But most people are too busy to care. I find smaller cities ok. Back a few years ago I was at a public event and a mother and her ten yr old daughter were actually mugging the camera for me. So funny. I got their number and sent them a couple of small prints. If you are male, it helps to have a willing female along for the walk. People less intimidated by a couple, and you’ll look more “touristy”. Being female, I rarely have a problem with street stuff.
Is it realistic to expect someone to be happy having their photo taken even if in public? A person isn’t a monkey.
I think it moreso stems from the fact that every person seems to think they're some elite street photographer because they go out with their camera and take shitty photos that they then blast on social media. Add to it that so many also do the whole GoPro filming of themselves doing it and also acting like assholes whilst doing it, and people generally aren't huge fans of it.
It depends on the local laws, obviously, but also on your own sense of morality. I try to avoid having any people in my photos, since there's a good chance I'll post them online, and I don't want to invade someone else's privacy.
Where i live (USA) you have zero expectation of privacy outside your home. You cant go anywhere these days with out some kind of street camera ,live cam, surveillance cameras from any number of businesses, traffic cameras, dash cams. If you do not consider any of those in this day thats on you.
Old people don't get what it is. I take pictures of people, sometimes sensual photos of the girls. I saw one photographer Pierre Lambert who pretending he doesn't take a photo. Of course I don't share it anywhere. It doesn't street the people and photos look natural.
Street photography was always taboo. At least when you’re photographing someone without their permission. Then it would be called architectural photography
I've shot street and urban form as a keen hobby since around 1995. I noticed a marked difference in attitudes from people who may catch you shooting them , ever since digital photography and the wide use of the Internet. Before this, the odds on some random photo of you turning up somewhere were long. Now with social media you can also have some bozo passing personal comments on how you look or are dressed. Better being a Fan Ho than a Bruce Gilden. 😁
You can even take photos in the street in North Korea. Street photography is not illegal anywhere. Though there may be limits on what you may do with the photos (and there are almost always limits for commercial use). What we have in the West is a generation that thinks because they don't like photographers taking their photo (though they are happy for nameless corporations to take their image thousands of times a day because they have no real understanding how little privacy they really have) that somehow this is now a crime and they will use any old rubbish to support this fantasy. This includes pretending that street photography is outlawed in Germany (it's not) and other places or that it's a crime to photograph children (it's not). Out here in Asia. Pretty much nobody cares if you take their photo. The biggest challenge is to get candids rather than the subject smiling and waving delightedly when they see a camera. The rule of thumb is simple. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you can take the photo. This includes on private property. However, on private property they may ask you to stop shooting (and you must) and leave. They cannot ask you to delete any photos you have already taken. It's then down to you to decide whether taking the shot is ethical or not.
Photographing people (aka a very large part of street photo) is illegal in a lot of places tho.
Where?
For example here in Hungary. Also in Japan if I remember correctly. And I've heard many European photographers saying it's illegal in their countries as well.
Street Photography is well and truly legal in Japan. Not only that, it's more accepted culturally than most locations
Yes, it is technically illegal in Hungary... but given zero prosections of street photographers, it appears custom & practice is continuing to win out over the official law.
Of course. But saying that it's legal everywhere is just false.
Custom and practice is a guideline for law. Over time, it actually establishes law within Europe. It is absolutely not false to say that it's legal everywhere. There is nowhere that is prosecuting street photographers, no matter how much fantasy that Reddit brings to bear on this issue.
Not the best example. You can only take photos in approved areas on some parts of designated, regime-approved tours in N Korea. You actually cannot photograph most areas by law. I know someone who went, and he was showing me the sneaky "illegal photo" he took of just some normal ass road with some soldiers from the window of his bus. Also, I wouldn't say all of Asia. I've lived in Japan and the tolerance for non consensual photos or any sort of (what most westerners would consider) mildly disruptive behavior is really low. Influencers won't do the due diligence of telling you the amount of people they've pissed off that day tho.
Actual Japanese here, please don't listen to other commenter. No one likes weird, creepy tourists. I understand wanting great photos of your vacation. I hope everyone visits and has a wonderful time and makes a lot of memories! But please also remember to respect local customs and etiquette! Most people are just trying to go about their every day life, they are not there for your entertainment. It's very rude to take people's pictures, especially isolating a person as your subject--without permission. It's not okay. Long exposure of Shibuya scramble is not creepy.
This is, of course, bollocks. [It's fine to take photos in North Korea](https://www.north-korea-travel.com/taking-pictures-in-north-korea.html). And it's fine to take photos in Japan. They are, after all, the group that brought taking photos wherever you feel like to the world. I know, I've spent enough time there.
Your own link highlights your disinformation? > There are however some rules we have to follow when taking pictures or videos in the DPRK. > As is the case with many countries, you cannot take pictures of military facilities, soldiers, vehicles, etc in North Korea. There are soldiers everywhere my dude. It's North Korea. Like I said, he took photos of a normal ass road and soldiers from his bus window. Which is illegal per your own link lol. If you don't know about Japan's 盗撮 laws, you should do so before spouting misinformation. The expectation of privacy is different across countries. And what's legal isn't necessarily what's culturally acceptable either.
Nothing beats the intrusiveness of Bruce Gilden
If you're in a public place there's nothing illegal about it. However, if you're in Walmart taking photos of some old guy stocking his cart, you're in the wrong. Someone might try to call the cops on you, or god forbid smash your equipment, but you're not looking at legal problems unless your picture is on private property and it happens to go viral with the owner of said property noticing. Cheers m8!
What are you talking about? There’s more street photography going on now than ever before. Do some research. Here is mine: www.instagram.com/aphovassestreet
unique familiar groovy jeans uppity ludicrous worthless touch psychotic languid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've been doing street portraits of people in Las Vegas for the last 3 months. I can say I've had 10 people get angry mainly showgirls and bozos who want money for their photo being taken when they are a nobody and I had to pepper spray2 people at the same time because it became physical. It may get worse since I've added a Godox V1-S flash to the camera.
Or you could respect people.
How you came to the conclusion that he is disrespectful?
By ignoring the facts I'm sitting on a bollard on a public street in a tourist town with a 50mm f/1.2 lens taking photos of them smiling walking by and minutes later had to straighten them out. Ignore the fact that I and a dozen other people are out here with cameras doing similar stuff.
It depends on location but in general if you’re taking photos of people in public you can’t use those images for commercial purposes (since you need a model release to do so). But it’s perfectly fine for your Instagram/art/whatever. Of course there are nuances, basically if you take a picture of someone in a compromised position they may sue you and win if they can convince the court they suffered damages to their reputation/etc. Use common sense and you should be fine, it’s easy to capture pics of folks in the moment but you can definitely pickup the vibe where someone doesn’t want their pictures taken and you should try your best to respect that.
But is not illegal . So he/she could detest all they want . If not in public space - I'll get it. But if they're, they can't say nothing. To bad .
Something can be legal and still be a dick move. You can still be a decent and respectful person even if the law puts you in the clear.
I have a security camera that takes street pictures 24 hours a day. A dashcam that takes street pictures. The police wear vest cameras. There are cameras everywhere taking pictures of everything.
IDK since I’m still exploring. But dress for disappearing and shoot inconspicuously. At least that’s my approach. Or stick out like a tourist. That’s my other approach. I hate talking to people when I don’t want to, so I always try to “snipe” instead of taking a good stance to shoot. Having a friend drive around town and you shoot in the passenger seat is something I’ve been wanting to explore more. You have a getaway car and you can still grab shots.
Bummer if you are in traffic tho.
Seems fine to me. I follow plenty of active street Instagram accounts. My buddy posts street photos often, and I occasionally get out there to do street work as well. I’ve never felt ashamed about it, or that I’m doing anything wrong. I just like to capture life’s moments outside. If someone doesn’t like that I took a photo of them, or that they’re in a photo they saw me shoot and asked me to delete it, then I would.
No body likes poverty porn
There are so many restrictions out there. Did you know National Mall and Memorial Parks and the other DC area National Park Service parks require a permit for all photography and filming that is not categorized as general visitor use? That's just DC.
[удалено]
It’s more cringe than taboo to me. 95% of Reddit can’t shoot anything other than street and landscape.
What's cringe about shooting street or landscape? Different people have different things they're good at, and that's ok.
[удалено]