digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at mentalfloss.com

Taking Pictures of Strangers: Part I

mentalfloss.com — For some reason when I get out my camera, I take pictures of strangers. Strangers don ’t pose. They do funny things without realizing they’re being watched. And when you get the pictures back, they’re never around to complain about how they look. What I'm doing is called street photography.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iamabootdisk, on 02/27/2008, -6/+78now that's a cool story. i was wondering though... what's the legality of taking someone's picture and not telling them, and then posting it on the internet for millions to see? i mean.. i would certainly hope there would be no problem with it. but you know how some people can be.
    • weiwuwei, on 02/27/2008, -1/+125From Wikipedia, Street photography - Photographing without permission: In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. Regarding publication: In general, one cannot publish someone's image to endorse a product or service without first acquiring a "model release," which is usually a contract between the publisher or photographer and the subject.
      • linagee, on 02/27/2008, -9/+1Publish means to make money from it, I would think. Does a polaroid instant camera "publish" the picture that comes out?
        • halfstep, on 02/27/2008, -10/+2So posting these on flickr, someone is making money right? That would constitute publishing I would think. I would be upset if someone was making money from my image without my consent, or me getting a piece of the pie. Or it would at least be nice if he had the courtesy to ask people if they mind him taking their pictures, I think its a bit rude, even though the photographs did turn out nicely. I had a friend who is a talented dancer and some company once put a video of him on the street dancing in one of their commercials and he didn't find out until way after, and he never saw a penny.
          • smithchr, on 02/27/2008, -1/+8How is someone making money due to a posting on Flickr? Yahoo (Flickr's owner) has license agreements in place with its users which essentially say that all posted material is the user's and the poster retains copyright. Yahoo doesn't take the photo and use it in ads or to sell a product. And the Flickr user who posts the material in their account doesn't make money by posting the photo - they're simply displaying it.
            Also, the point is that he doesn't want to ask people if he can take their photo - he wants their genuine reactions. If you ask someone if you can take their photo they either a) say no b) look at you weird or c) say yes and smile. In each of these cases, the basic reason for taking a street photog photo is gone.
            For your friend, he was certainly in his rights to be upset - but a dance company made a commercial using him. Reputable stock photography companies dictate that if the person is recognizable (not just their face - could be a characteristic movement or typical clothing item) then you must obtain a model release in order to sell a photo with a person in it.
          • ianaleksander, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Actually you are allowed to publish images without a model release as editorial or fine art content. It's been successfully defended to a great extent. You are allowed to have gallery shows and sell prints, and would probably get away with using it in a self promotional sense. You just can't use it in an advertisement for an unrelated product.

            As I don't want to do commercial work, I actually make a point about not getting model releases for most of my photographs. It limits me in some ways, but I feel better about not using other people in that way anyway. If I'm doing a commercial job and the model is making the choice to sell their image, though, that's another matter.
      • cawpin, on 02/27/2008, -9/+2"What I'm doing is called street photography."

        What your doing could be considered illegal. You're using pictures of people for profit without their consent. I don't care, I'm just raising the point.

        *I don't know if it's illegal in Ireland.
        • vornan19, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5The pictures were taken in public places where no expectation of privacy should be expected. It is not illegal at all in the USA.
          Newspapers print pictures of people all the time and I am sure they done't give on red cent to the photographee.
        • skinjester, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0 As others have stated, public space is exactly that. Additionally, anyone in an urban area is photographed by surveillance cameras multiple times every day. I don't recall signing a model release this morning as I was imaged at the BART station or at Starbucks! and in the case of surveillance there is a clear profit (equipment vendors, software vendors, security consultants, etc.) far more money involved than most photographers will ever see.
    • N3tw0rk, on 02/27/2008, -2/+113Pro Tip: Don't take any pictures of police or you might get tazed.
      • DeathJux, on 02/27/2008, -0/+14Fun story:

        I was walking around Regent Street in London taking pictures this last December, and as I wandered down the street I noticed Picadilly Circus was blocked off with police tape. I set up my tripod to get a shot of the blocked off street, and a police officer came up and asked me if I had permission to shoot there, claiming it was illegal, "especially with a tripod." I told her that it was public property, and I asked if there were any special restrictions on the area. She cited the "terrorist act of 2000" and said I had to leave.

        I moved on without making a scene, though I'm pretty sure I was in the right. I later learned that Picadilly Circus was closed due to a bomb threat, so I'm wondering if she was being overly cautious or something.
        • urbandistrict, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2I don't know about London, but in LA you need a permit to shoot in public. It's not enforced very much but those are the rules. More so with a tripod as you are less of a tourist. This has been my experience with video, but I believe the same goes for photog.

          In Spain, the police were more than willing to take pics with me, etc. The military gaurds...not so much.
        • NSNick, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1It's different for video than it is for still photography.
        • dkruta, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Regarding video, you typically need a permit because video equipment tends to block public areas and pedestrian traffic, whereas photography usually doesn't require more than stopping, pointing and shooting. Once you add equipment like a tripod, the lines between the two get blurred. I know in NYC you need a permit to shoot video when using stationary equipment, but it's ok to shoot handheld and take photographs.
      • xkingADROCKx, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Don't tase me bro!
    • centran, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8Here is an article that dives into the very very very gray area of photographing people and getting a model release. It is a long read.
      http://www.danheller.com/model-release

      Basically it is what weiwuwei said. In the US if you are on the street you can legally take photographs of people. The gray area come with how you are going to use the picture. One area that is not gray is advertising. If you are going to use it in a blatant advertisement then you need a model release. Everything else is gray.
      • linagee, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1This article is advertising the skills of the photographer.
        • BossKey, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1But the article is well thought out, so fair enough.
          It's hard to find well-founded information on this subject, and that article is frequently referenced in photography forums as a good source. So I'm not against the guy making a pitch off to the side of the page.
        • centran, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3BossKey I think what Linagee was referring to was the photo's in the digg article linked.

          And now you see the gray area you get into. Is he advertising? Does he owe the people he shot anything?
          The better question is put a dollar amount on how much he "made" from that article. Can you? Then are the people he photographed owed something?

          Even if he had adsense and you can pull a dollar amount from that... Would you say the article is "news worthy" and therefore does not require a model release because it is news?

          See how much "fun" this can get. Bottom line.... If you can get someone to sign a model release then do it! You never know when it might come in handy.
          • BossKey, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1The photos in the article...so what? Most of them are used to illustrate his points. Most of them don't involve a use that requires a model release or payment (public, unidentifiable, etc). Of the ones that do, I'd assume he secured the proper releases.

            Are you suggesting that in an article about photography, written by a photographer, that it would be somehow inappropriate for that article _to have photographs in it_ ?

            Once again, yes I believe the article is newsworthy, ads or not, because so many people have found it to be a useful resource. Again, I have seen photographers linking to it from multiple photography forums on the Web. Take all the "ads" out and it still has content that people value. You make it sound like those are the worst Web ads you've ever seen.

            I learned from it, without paying him anything. Doesn't that sound OK?

            (Disclaimer: I don't know the guy personally, but he runs a very insightful blog on the photo business.)
          • ianaleksander, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Yes, you could debate it, but basically it's been established in a court that a working artist is allowed to try and make a living. People may not like it, but people often don't like a lot of art. Photos in public places may show us in ways we don't want to see, but if it was illegal to take them, one could not cover or comment upon a nazi rally, for example. Do you see how it's important to have that right?
      • GawtMilk, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4A good way to avoid model releases yet still obtain good photos is to not directly photograph the faces of subjects. It's perfectly fine otherwise -- I was out shooting a couple of days ago and people were turning away and ignoring me; common if you're shooting street. It's best to acknowledge both the ease of avoiding faces and work with the image of someone from behind -- the impersonality is an element of street photos that people often love.

        Look at two of Cartier-Bresson's most famous photos -- there's no facial connection between you and the subject, yet they are powerful images that find interest in the mundane -- what street is all about. Street photography is not portraiture.

        http://www.cameraposition.com/podcast/images/Carti ...
        http://pages.cthome.net/rwinkler/cartier.jpg

        Here are two instances [disclaimer:i took these] where the "models" turned away or said "no", yet I worked around it. I find them to still be interesting photographs -- it's all about being courageous yet not pushy.

        http://flickr.com/photos/charlesviper/2277171078/i ...
        http://flickr.com/photos/charlesviper/2276378481/i ...
        • ianaleksander, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Right, Cartier-Bresson is an excellent person to show in this case.
    • ekSD, on 02/27/2008, -1/+39Another pro tip: military bases are a huge no-no.
      • Whippets, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3LOL On my school's field trip along time ago I saw some foreigner get tazed because he took a picture of the pentagon.
      • jeremyduffy, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2I was in the DC metro system and took some pictures of the station because we hicks from out west have never seen anything like it. A security guard came and told me to put it away. Luckily I'm a white male so he didn't take my camera, taze me, and pull out the rubber glove.
    • bxblox, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15NYC pro-top: If cops see you taking pictures of anything, reconsider.
      • Rotzooi, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3You're not kidding. I was taking pictures of a (for me) completely random building, together with a bunch of Japanese tourists, and I got harrassed by a real pain of a cop. Didn't end up giving the camera or deleting the pictures, which is what he wanted, but that little run-in didn't leave me with a good feeling.
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6SF pro tip - There is a chance you may be hit on if you take a picture of other guys.
    • BoogieManOh, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3Well the government does it anyway..
    • DangerCollie, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Disclaimer: INAL. My understanding is that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. You generally don't need a release to photograph or even sell pictures that include people in a public place. If you're going to use the picture in something like, "I use XYZ investment company." You're in a different realm there. An individual endorsement or product endorsement usually requires a release. News organizations are on different legal footing than commercial photography or video. At least that's my understanding. If the photo or video is commercial, I try to get releases.
  • gustavbb, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15I doubt Diane Arbus or Robert Frank ever got sued for not getting model releases for their pictures ... if you're acting weird on the street, expect to have your picture taken!
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1franky boy... he was great.
    • skinjester, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0very true! As often as not people use the "model release' as an excuse for lacking the convictions to take the pictures they want to take.
  • dolphus, on 02/27/2008, -0/+11Great pictures. And that warm fuzzy confirmation that if you try this you won't be "beaten or chased" :)
    • herriojr, on 02/27/2008, -2/+0A friend and I used to drive around and take pictures of other drivers while at stop lights, and about 90% of the time, they end up cussing at us and following us for about 30 minutes.
  • mellaart, on 02/27/2008, -5/+7It remember me a photo of Carter-Bresson.
    • bossm4n, on 02/27/2008, -0/+11I believe you meant Henri Cartier-Bresson. And yes, he was an outstanding photographer. No surprise that this "reminded" you of him--he invented the genre of street photography roughly 80 years ago.
      • GawtMilk, on 02/27/2008, -1/+7Come on people, he forgot an "i". It's evident that English isn't his first language, don't be so prissy about it.
    • Theycallmetak, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1If you wannabe a Leica wannabe, at least get the name right.
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1robert capa... war photography. thats ballsy street photography for you.
    • earther, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately, street photography is not allowed on the streets of Paris any longer. Ironic, no?
  • Biks, on 02/27/2008, -1/+9My pictures stopped coming back since I've gone digital. (I wonder where they went?)
  • brentinkc, on 02/27/2008, -6/+10Good photography, but I was hoping for something funny.
  • dotlizard, on 02/27/2008, -1/+39i always think that strangers are going to feed me my camera if i point it at them. but i am generally kind of paranoid that way. never had to eat a camera though!
    • spineaches, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5well that wouldnt be too tasty, now would it.
    • undershirt, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Be inconspicuous. That's how you get candid shots anyway.
      • benplaut, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Nah. Trying to look sneaky is the worst of all. Don't make a scene, just take a picture!
      • dkruta, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1If only it were that easy for someone like me who is 6'5" and stands taller than most everyone.
    • gotterdammerung, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Some dude did took a picture of me on the street a few weeks ago, and I was simply too startled to do anything violent. I'd think that people (particularly women) would generally be flattered, not angry.
  • sajnikanth, on 02/27/2008, -3/+6But..strangers usually want to take pictures of me *looks in mirror...scratches head*
  • wildfire, on 02/27/2008, -0/+33That's how I got my last restraining order!
  • LloydBentsen, on 02/27/2008, -1/+8My favorite is the picture of the gorilla. It reminds me of the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
  • trogdorBURN, on 02/27/2008, -7/+4http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/24/funny-pic ...
    • jonesyb, on 02/27/2008, -5/+4Every time someone posts one of those ***** LOLcats pics or speaks in that stupid ***** baby language relating to it, someone in the world gets cancer.

      It's all your fault.

  • digitalxn3, on 02/27/2008, -9/+5I was hoping for some booty pics since they are only 'strangers' :p
  • eminor, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2nice article but there's a lot of better stuff out there. http://www.in-public.com/photographers
  • stockefeller, on 02/27/2008, -1/+16If photographers require a model release, how in the hell do the Paparazzi get away with taking pictures of celebrities without their permission?
    • coolxal, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1Free press.
    • Stonedonkey, on 02/27/2008, -0/+16The law makes a distinction between "public figure" and "private citizen." Celebrities, professional athletes, and politicians all fall into the first group. There are some gray areas, naturally.
      • jerryterhorst, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2like Joey Buttafuoco?
      • lilwagon, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4ummmmmmm no. If it's "news" or "documentary" then NO RELEASE. public figure or not. I guess that by saying someone is a public figure then the pictures ARE news..... but if you are in a car wreck, I can take your picture and SELL it to a NEWS outlet, because we have THE FIRST AMENDMENT....... for now
        • Ludwig, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1A car wreck is slightly different than Britney Spears shaving her head and flashing her cooch around. Things like that are not news that you'd be able to release of a private citizen without a release.
    • mimilena, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Those are allowed if they are used as editorial images.
    • jerryterhorst, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1what stonedonkey said. same reason people like jon stewart, stephen colbert, and "newspapers" like the onion can quote famous people (when it's obviously made up) and not get sued for slander/libel.
    • dkruta, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Using quotes, images, etc are protected under law if used in news or parodies, but if I were to take, for example, Britney's (sans)panty-shot and use it to advertise a waxing business, then that would be illegal.
  • samropalash, on 02/27/2008, -2/+0Is sachin is in the picture
  • yeahclick, on 02/27/2008, -3/+5I'm sorry, but I can't help but find this pretentious.
  • thedarkrabbit, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1480% of all my photos are of strangers....
  • blueandgreen24, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3Personally I still thinks its wierd
  • FoamyBrian, on 02/27/2008, -6/+5I'm all for photography and everything but its creepy when people take random pictures of me without me knowing. Then again it would be cool if a random snapshot of myself ends up on some magazine. Unless, of course, the magazine is directed towards gay men.
  • semeticstallion, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Like a modern-day Weegee series, but slightly less odd.
  • czeus, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Amazing photography!
    I can only wish to be this good one day :)
    • Zalyster, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Switch to black and white mode, done.
      Throw in a sepia here and there for some added wows.
  • ricin, on 02/27/2008, -0/+41I carry a printed copy of this PDF in my camera bag: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
    I'm amazed at how many people don't know about these rights.
  • DeathJux, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2I generally feel weird about taking random people's pictures... at least, if they're the subject. It just seems almost rude to be wielding this infinite electric eye that has the power to capture your image forever.
  • MrTito, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8I found out the hard way that this isn't always great. I was taking pictures with some friends of mine at state park trade days here in Alabama (kinda like a flea market [and if you don't know flea market, maybe dirt mall?]). Nothing like that can make you feel like your life or at least property might be in danger when a bunch of rednecks cover up their "antique" rifles and Nazi memorabilia while giving you the evil eye.

    Also seeing the creepy, old man who's missing half of his teeth hitting on 15-year old girls makes you want to take a shower... in another state.
  • hoostasauce, on 02/27/2008, -6/+0***** creeper
  • dwninjungleland, on 02/27/2008, -4/+9What you're doing is called Creepy
    • jj101, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5What you're writing is called "paranoid".
  • MikeFallopian, on 02/27/2008, -2/+7This guy got front-paged for taking pictures of strangers? When I tried that, all I got was six months in county. Stupid technicalities about installing cameras in the ladies' locker room...
  • slayernine, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Pro Tip: Try making original comments for a change.
  • sohorrifying, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1Voyeurism is a practice in which an individual derives sexual pleasure from observing other people.
  • stokd, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Have you ever wondered how many pictures you're in that you're not aware of? Like if you go on vacation or just walk around and end up being in the background of someone else's picture unknowingly? Maybe the last time you picked your nose or stuck your foot in front of that old lady's walker (ohh....that's just me?), someone could have gotten a snapshot. Who knows if you're in one of this person's pictures, it's entirely possible!
    • skinjester, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0definitely. I've often wondered what became of the people who just happened to be in the frame when I pressed the shutter. What were their dreams? Are they happy? Where are they now/
  • crazyeyezkilla, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6These are really not that great.
    • jd33, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3I would be happy with them if I took them myself, but definitely not digg worthy.
  • Spartyon, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1this isn't the first step to serial killing or anything.
  • earther, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1If you like looking at photographs of random people, and to also re-emphasize the point that you don't need a model release to do so, i suggest having a look here:
    http://earthsworld.com
  • jonesyb, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I want some Garry Winogrand books. But they are just so expensive. He is the master of street photography in my opinion.

    I do like some of the pics in this article thoguh. Nice.
  • yaphi, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2A guy on the subway was trying to hide the fact that he was filming people through the reflection in the window this past weekend. So I stared back into the window with my middle finger right at him and when he got to me he shut the camera off. I hate when people do this *****. I don't want to be in your stupid movie.
    • skinjester, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1did you have the same ego issue when your image was captured multiple times on surveillance cameras in the subway station?
  • Spamiclese, on 02/27/2008, -9/+2What you're doing is called stalking.
    • OMnicient, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I don't think any law enforcement officers would agree, since it is perfectly legal.
  • stackered, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3....he also likes to follow them home and take pictures of tehm naked, in their showers...
  • WonderBoy55, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Street + word = cool
    • AbsurdParadox, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Excellent usage of streetwording.
  • sabarsky, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4It's all about "expectations of privacy".

    In The Photographer's Right, Oregon attorney Bert P. Krages II writes: "The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statue or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.” Subjects that can "almost always be photographed lawfully from public places" include accident and fire scenes, children, celebrities, law enforcement officers and private homes.
    • OMnicient, on 02/27/2008, -1/+0There are many places with laws against photographing or otherwise recording law enforcement officers in the US.

      If it is legal, absent another photographer taking photos of you being confronted by a law enforcement officer, you may end up in bad shape.
    • snullbug, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1If you believe this, try taking some pictures of children in bathing suits at the beach and then having them developed by Wal-Mart. You may be surprised at the result.
  • Beaches, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6personally, not a fan of the black and white photos, they work sometimes, but i like more colour to really see the emotions and feelings of a photo.
  • gotterdammerung, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Do they need permission to use that neck-down stock footage of portly folks that they roll in front of every story about the "obesity epidemic" in America?
  • Tmac90, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2When ever i see pictures like his i wonder if someone took a picture of me like this and i will see it on the net.
  • copyland, on 02/27/2008, -1/+4yawn. is that it? can't wait for "pictures of strangers- part 2"
    • jd33, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1couldn't agree more! I'm trying to figure out why everyone is digging this.
  • ci5ic, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3Some people get pissed when you take their picture without asking... they're always douche-bags.

    A guy the other night told me "well, I don't want my picture taken because of my past with drugs" (and I hadn't even taken his picture... he was just nearby and saw the flash).

    Another guy got mad and told me that he was Native American, and he believed that photographs steal a piece of his soul. Again, this dude wasn't even in the shot, just saw the flash and had to tell me.

    Number one, It's not my fault the first douche-bag has a criminal past. ***** him.

    Number two, given the times that we live in, the average American (native or not) is probably photographed/videod hundreds of times a day on security cameras and the like. ESPECIALLY IN CASINOS which, around here, are all on reservations and owned/operated by native american tribes, crammed with security cameras every 3 feet. So ***** that guy, too.
  • jlhoben, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Excellent! Surprised people actually do this in the age of hysteria.
  • snullbug, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1The guy's web page has a ad for a subscription to some publication of his. Therefore it could be argued that he is using these pictures to sell something. In that case, not having model releases could be risky. At the very least he could be compelled to remove any pictures of people that complain. Worse, he could be sued. Worst yet, if someone in one of these photos is a professional model, he could be sued for a butt load.
  • airburst, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4Am I the only one who is annoyed when captions are above the photos?
  • 1jaxstate1, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Seems kind of odd. I know it's within your rights and all, but what if someone didn't want their picture taken. Just seem rude.
  • katlynedge, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0can you say sketchy much?
  • Doomsan, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I made the same thing during my vacation, it's much more spontaneous!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.