Summary

Street photography is a complex field that navigates the ethical and legal boundaries of capturing candid moments in public spaces, often raising concerns about privacy and exploitation.

Abstract

The article delves into the ethical and legal considerations of street photography, highlighting the tension between the artistic desire to capture genuine human emotions and the potential infringement on personal privacy and dignity. The author, a photographer, reflects on the challenges of respecting subjects' rights while pursuing authentic depictions of urban life. The discussion includes the impact of regulations like GDPR on photography, the distinction between ethical and legal practices, and the moral dilemma of photographing individuals in vulnerable states. The piece also touches on the responsibility photographers hold in presenting images that may be perceived as grotesque or invasive, emphasizing the need to balance aesthetics with ethics.

Opinions

The author believes that street photography's power lies in its ability to capture candid, unposed moments, showcasing life in its rawest form.
There is a recognition that street photography can be both ethical and legal, but these aspects do not always align.
The author expresses concern about the potential for street photography to invade privacy, particularly when subjects are unaware they are being photographed.
The enactment of GDPR has caused anxiety among photographers about the legality of their work, though the article notes that some countries, like Germany, protect street photography as an art form.
The article suggests that photographing individuals in distress or grief can be seen as exploitative, as such images can be more impactful and are often preferred by photographers.
It is argued that the aesthetic value of a photograph can conflict with ethical considerations, and that what may be considered a masterpiece by one person could be viewed as grotesque by another.
The author emphasizes the photographer's responsibility to consider the potential impact of their images on the subjects and the public, advocating for a conscientious approach to publishing photographs.
The piece cites other photographers, such as Erick Kim, to support the idea that creating art, including street photography, is essential for human expression and well-being.

Is Street Photography Ethical and Legal?

Or is it neither?

A guy picking up a coin from a street in Downtown Boston, 2018. Photo Credits: Viktor Marchev

Iam writing this article both as a photographer and as an observer.

From what I’ve realized for the past two years taking photos of people (and not only), is that the art of photography has always been under scrutiny. Especially a particular aspect of it — street photography, which has spurred an avalanche of diverse comments regarding its ethical and legal dimensions, and whether they sometimes overlap in this case, or not.

What is Street Photography?

By definition, street photography aims to showcase everyday life in public, mostly urban spaces. This type of capturing images is usually referred to as candid, i.e. pictures taken without the knowledge of the subject — which, in my opinion, makes this type of art so powerful.

The Current Problem?

The desire of people like me to show peoples’ emotions on the street, as seen through the lens, can often raise both ethical and legal concerns. Although this form of photography aims to display urban life in its most genuine and raw state, it could still start numerous debates on its morality.

I acknowledge, however, that there is a big difference between being ethical and being legal, as something could be legal, yet not ethical, and vise versa.

Probably the hardest thing for me, while shooting photos on the street, is to decide whether a photograph taken of a person in a public space is in breach of her/his personal space.

It’s tricky when it comes to that, as most of the time, you don’t know when this all turns into invasion of privacy. Another issue is whether the image you upload would cause any trauma or harm to the subject.

Since the enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), people like me have been anxious about how this would affect our photographs. In PetaPixel, Hendrik Wieduwilt argued that these new regulations:

“Turn street photography into a legal nightmare.”

However, in Germany, the Constitutional Court has ruled that this type of photography is protected by the constitution, as it is considered an art. Whereas, in France, if you do not have the permission of a person to take her/his photograph, you, essentially, are breaking the law.

“To shoot or not to shoot”

This concept is regarding the question of whether a photographer should take the photo of a person who is currently in no position to deny the photographer’s access to the event or situation. More specifically, it concerns wounded, in shock, or grief-stricken people, who, at the moment of taking the photographs, have lost control over their circles of intimacy.

From what I’ve read on ethics, people have a couple of areas over which they have control — the right to a personal free space from intrusion and the right to preserve one’s state of grief or joy.

I think that this ultimately sometimes leads to the following — somebody’s misfortune is the photographer’s fortune. Meaning that, in general, photos of people grieving are far more powerful and emotional than people who are happy. That’s my point of view and that’s probably why I usually prefer to capture images that are more moody than joyful.

In the article How Photography Exploits the Vulnerable, Ryan Jones argues:

“There are too many gratuitous photos of people jamming needles into their bodies and bloated corpses carried out of filthy homes”

That said, the people who are behind the camera often fail to maintain the humanity of the people in the photographs, especially when it comes to drug addicts.

“Those who are photographed are never allowed to live outside of the pain they’re in, because those photos turn a single behavior into an identity that exists in perpetuity.”

Aesthetics and Ethics

This concept is about how rational humans act when it comes to differing the aesthetics and ethics of a photograph.

The aesthetics aspect is, in general, hard to deal with in photography, whereas the ethics one is far more straightforward and more easily dealt with.

It’s a problem when people are arguing over whether an image is grotesque enough not to be shown to the public.

Every person’s perception of aesthetics is different. The ethics debate, however, does not merely rely on individual taste, but rather, on already established moral principles that are generally less individualistic than taste (as in aesthetics).

Often, we as photographers, do our best to capture the purest and most genuine human emotions and moments. In pursuit of what, the outcome may be images that are highly uncomfortable to watch. That’s why I think that a particular image can be a masterpiece for one person, and an extremely grotesque depiction of reality for others.

So, where does the thin line lie?

At the end of the day, it is the photographer’s choice whether she/he should upload a photograph. If it is published, then it becomes a responsibility.

You should always take into consideration the good, the bad, the beautiful, and ugly, so that upon uploading the photo, it becomes your truth, which will ultimately transcend onto your work.

According to the wonderful photographer Erick Kim,

“As humans we must all create art, or else we will fall into depression or exhaustion/nihilism in life”

Street photography is all about catching this one magical moment of somebody’s life, no matter how sad or joyful it is. That’s the true depiction of life. This is how life is.

Nevertheless, street photography can also often be quite dishonest, intrusive, and even exploiting.

With the emergence of more and more players in the business of photography, people that practice it should be aware of its ethical and moral standards, and should also acknowledge that there are boundaries that should not be crossed.