We have different sensibilities about posting photos of people. Some bloggers won't even post family photos. Some folk wondered about me posting sneaky candid photos in a recent post. Chacun à son goût, as they say.
It's legal. In every reasonable jurisdiction as far as I know, you are entitled to photograph and post whatever and whomever you see in public. However, you are not permitted to sell someone's likeness. In that case, you need a model release.
Is it ethical, though? In my case, I chose not to post images like the one below on Facebook. However, not many people read my blog and almost no one local, so I figure it is close to being private. Besides, in this case at least, the person is almost unidentifiable as she faces away form the camera in what is not too far off being a silhouette.
I made the same choice with Flickr. I feel that my photos are also almost private there. In this case, however, it did gain notice by a certain algorithm and garnered more than 4.5k views. The fisherman and son only got a far more typical 160 or so views. I can almost guarantee that nobody local saw either photo.
18 comments:
I have had to sign waivers with professional photographers. Some people a very sensitive about photos. I am not. I don't think anyone could recognize the photo of the woman. I think I'd feel flattered you found me worthy of photographing!
That second photo is very sweet. I'm glad you shared it.
I don't think any of these people could be identified. Love that shot of the woman stretching.
I'm very careful about possible identifiers, and crop out street names and numbers, auto plates, that kind of thing. Security is an issue. I don't picture anyone recognizably, only back or partial side view. I crop out the faces of my knitting group companions, just showing their work. I think it's wise to protect people online.
The people couldn't be identified so I'd even post on social if I wanted, but I see what you mean. I'll take pix at event -- public events equals public exposure. And pretty much everyone I know is aware they are likely to end up on the blog or maybe FB. But I really try hard not to use super embarrassing photos of people. I suppose, if I was trying to make a point... but usually, no.
I prefer not to show faces. It is my preference. To each, his/her own!
TBH and without rancour, let me say that I have no idea how a random and nameless person appearing in a random location an a random blog, is an issue for anyone. I just don't get it. Perhaps I am naive.
These are indeed important considerations related to respect. Yet these are public spaces, and your intentions are not at all dishonourable. Plus, who in the 21st century is unaware that there are phones and cameras almost everywhere?
Father and son image is my favorite
I just decided to remove some of my more blatant photos of myself...with facial recognition these days on at least 2 apps on my phone, I don't want them accessed by anyone with those photos of myself, especially with AI. Other people? If I'm taking them to share with a group I ask first, then show them the pic for their approval. Friends that I capture in candids aren't published anywhere, just kept for my own amusement and memories.
I've always thought I was careful about identifiers. A woman who is rabidly paranoid about privacy told me most every digital photo can be located by markers in it. I don't know if I believe it.
A reasoned and polite discussion by people who are courteous. Like it a lot. No, I don't think the silhouette photo crosses a line. I think I said so when it first appeared. And people in public places have to expect to be photographed - at concerts, for instance, or dinners or weddings. And so on. But I only post photos of my family that they approve, either directly or if it is clear that the photo is a record - a birthday celebration, for instance.
And, yes, if you are going to profit by the image, you need to have a release. Whether you get a release if the person is not identifiable, I do not know. It has never arisen in my experience.
I'm not as careful as I probably should be, but I like being as open as possible. None of your photos would allow me to recognize the people if I lived in your area.
That's a tricky one! I posted a video and photos of a neighbour's 20-something kid and his pals driving their off-road motorbikes on the highway. They did wheelies. Lied to the mother about where and how far they went. Someone told her, and she got mad at me.
I had no idea anyone local read my blog!
When I was teaching, the rules were no kid faces, only group shots of students. I think you are good!
Photographing people from the back seems perfectly acceptable to me. If you take photographs in public, you will, sooner or later, wind up with people in them.
I think that the only picture I ever found to be intrusive was a friend was taking pictures in an old church. One of his pictures was of a young girl, praying, but she was looking at the camera with such a self conscious look. It was beautiful, really. But I asked him what he was going to do with that picture, and he said, "Nothing. It's not something I'd ever see. It is too intrusive." And that was the word I was looking for. It was intrusive.
I think you're good.
*sell
I was never comfortable with street photography and not comfortable taking shots of other people. That said, I think your shots of people are thoughtful and worthy, they are telling a story.
If I take a shot of my grands, I generally ask if it is okay to put on my blog and they are not concerned.
My oldest son posts absolutely no photos of his daughter.
Thanks for this post, AC, I was aware that photographing people in a public setting was allowed. Like yourself, I would never include one in a post that would be termed harmful to anyone included. Common sense and decency should always prevail in such decisions.
Post a Comment