Street Photography Is Not A Crime (and it isn’t wrong)

“Did You Just Take A Photo Of Me? You Need Permission. Delete It Now!”

It’s an occupational hazard, as a street photographer, that once in a while you run into someone who objects to you taking their photo. Of course, not everyone understands or is even aware of what street photography is – so I get that sometimes it causes concern, confusion and worry.

On Saturday I ran into such an incident on the seafront in Weston-super-Mare. Of late, I’ve been purposefully photographing people who hand me leaflets. Given street photography is about documenting the life and times we live in, leaflets are something that can be important in providing a social historical context of things that are happening now and concern us.

On this occasion the lady took exception to my taking a photograph. Ordinarily, when someone has concerns I’ll not use the photos. However, this particular individual was confrontational, insulting, threatening and incorrect in a number of legal assertions she made. She certainly wouldn’t let me explain my reasons for taking the photo, but I won’t get into the detail of that conversation, other than I was surprised she claimed to be a street photographer herself. So to clear up widespread misunderstandings here:

• There’s no legal right to privacy in public in the UK.

• Therefore, you do not require permission to take a photo of an individual in public.

• You cannot be forced to delete a photo. The High Court even found against the police for deleting images from the camera of a photojournalist.

Moral Considerations

There is, of course, a moral consideration to all of this. However, morals and ethics are subjective, and vary from person to person. You can’t be governed by someone else’s individual morals. Therefore, it comes down to the morals and ethics of the photographer to make a decision, not the subject. It’s for the photographer to act respectfully and responsibly (and of course legally) but that’s down to the photographer themselves.

As I say, where I think there are justified reasons for deleting an image or not using it (or not even taking one in the first place), then I won’t…but ultimately that is a decision for me personally to make. I won’t be dictated to, especially when someone doesn’t understand the law, or tries to bully or intimidate me into doing so. There will be occasions where I believe the photo is of artistic merit or documentary importance to justify keeping and using it.

It’s important to stress I provided the lady, who was concerned, with my business card, so should she wish to pursue further she knew how to contact me. It’s important to be open and transparent in such dealings – even where the other person may not be as considerate. I even posed for her to take a photo of me with her phone…smiling and with a thumbs up!

Artistic, Editorial and Commercial Use

What does sometime confuse people around permission being required, is more about the intentions of how a photo is to be used.

• Where a photo is to be used for artistic purposes, i.e. displayed on a website/social media/in a book/exhibited in a gallery, then there is no requirement for permission from the individual

• Where a photo is being used editorially, ie for the news or newspapers, again permission is not required for use.

• However, if a photo is being used commercially, i.e. for advertising, marketing, being associated with a product and so on, then permission to use is most definitely required – usually via a signed model release form and an agreed fee/reward.

Street Photography Has Meaning and Value

What surprised, and disappointed me a little was the response from someone on Facebook (where I later posted about the encounter) who objected more generally against street photography on moralistic grounds.

Now whilst I acknowledge that street photography may seem odd to some people, it is a long standing tradition/genre/approach.

The objector on Facebook wanted to claim it was undertaken by sinister and predatory lone men who invaded women’s privacy and made them feel unsafe. I won’t even get into how street photography is pursued by all genders, and not just men. Helen Levitt, Vivian Maier and Melissa O’Shaughnessy are just a few celebrated female street photographers.

However, this Facebook contact even wanted to go further and she equated it to being the same as these covertly and tacky filmed voyeuristic videos online of scantily dressed young women on nights out.

As I’ve said before street photography is a respected genre that has artistic value and both documentary and historical importance. That’s why it’s exhibited by art galleries worldwide and published by respected publishers.

It should never ever be compared to grubby online videos simply created for voyeuristic and cheap sexual kicks. They are not the same. It would be similar to comparing life drawing with online porn. The comparison was hyperbolic and ridiculous and likely just born out of complete ignorance of what street photography actually is.

A Final Point

It’s worth pointing out that, out of courtesy, I have used an image of the woman. at the head of this post, where she is unidentifiable. I did have a couple where her face is clearly seen, but chose not to use them here. However, I should also state, none of the photos themselves were any good anyway, so on any other occasion they wouldn’t have even seen light of day.

Could I have handled the situation any differently? On reflection I most probably could have. It wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but I maybe could have done more to explain my reasons and reassure her a little. So there are no real winners here. It’s never nice getting into these kind of situations and I even know a couple of street photographers who have given it up simply because of incidents like this.

However, let’s be clear…street photography is not illegal, and its not wrong. And street photographers should never feel bad about doing it.

What are your views on all of this? Have you ever experienced similar? I’d love to hear in the comments below.