Ethical posting

[Jeremy Roussak]

I have a friend with dystonia and his symptoms are neck muscle pull into an almost exact position as the fellow in your photo. 

On the other hand, you may have just caught a fully functional person in a "juggling six things at once posture." But from the shape of his jawline and mouth and the radical lift of the right shoulder, I'm inclined to think dystonia.

If he does have what used to be called a wry neck, he's jolly lucky that it aligns so well with modern technology. Can you not see the phone wedged between his cheek and his shoulder?

Jeremy

[stamper]

What gives, stamper?

You ask an open question on an open forum, and then react with defensive indignation when you don't like the responses.

No wonder I seldom offer comment on your pictures.

Rob C

I will tell what gives Rob. The image wasn't posted for critique but to illustrate a question. The question being is it unethical to post an image that has someone with a possible affliction in it? You completely ignored that and attacked the image. I wasn't asking for a critique. Calling it ugly wasn't smart? I had a genuine concern about the image and Russ's post about taking images and deciding not to post was the answer I was looking for.

[stamper]

I immediately saw it as someone trying to hold a phone, so I didn't really have a problem. There remains the issue of invasion of privacy... but of course I always see that more in someone else's photos than in mine 

I would hope that street photography is about more than finding what is quirky or unusual, but rather something that communicates a feeling or impression. That seems to be happening here with a story about the modern need to be doing 3 things at once, whatever the physical and mental consequences.

In the UK there isn't any invasion of privacy. Street photography is perfectly legal unless you are harassing someone.
In this instance I was framing the people sitting down enjoying the sunshine when he walked through the scene. I only saw him for two seconds and I thought there was a juxtaposition between him and the stationary people.

[Jim Pascoe]

Then I'm not sure why you posted a picture of a guy walking past using his phone and ask a question about whether it is ethical to post a picture of somebody with a possible affliction.  He probably does not have a disability.

It's not an image I either like or dislike really.  Like most street photos - I think it will be a lot more interesting in 50 years time.....

Jim

[stamper]

I didn't post the image for a critique because I didn't think it was good enough for judgement by the members. Some of them can be scathing if it doesn't have "merit" I posted it to Flickr because the members there aren't as scathing. However one member thought that the person had a deformity which got me thinking about ethics. On one hand I am surprised by the reactions of some of the members here but I fully expected one or two to over react which they did. At the end of the day I suppose a clash of personalities come into play? It does seem like a lot of the members don't see any merit - or understand - in street photography. Perhaps their fear of shooting strangers overwhelms them.

[Otto Phocus]

Can you not see the phone wedged between his cheek and his shoulder?

Jeremy

No I don't see a phone.  What may appear to be the edge of a phone looks to me like a turned up collar on his dress shirt.

If it is a phone, where is the other collar point on his shirt?

[GrahamBy]

In the UK there isn't any invasion of privacy. Street photography is perfectly legal unless you are harassing someone.

Ethics cannot be reduced to legality. If only legality was in question, I doubt there is a law specific to street photography of persons with a hypothetical disability.
So what would be the point of the question?

Actually I just checked Wikipedia, and it seems the theoretical legal situation in the UK is not so different to France, because of EU legislation. The practice may of course be different:

A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[28][29][30][31][32]

Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[33] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In the UK there isn't any invasion of privacy. Street photography is perfectly legal unless you are harassing someone.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on location/country and jurisprudence.

To give you an idea, and maybe that is different in the UK, in the Netherlands (with one of the more liberal Copyright systems, if not superseded by European law), it is as a general principle permitted to take pictures of scenes in public space, including pictures of people. There are limitations, usually around copyrighted objects in the scene, but people are not excluded from the general principle.

However, there is also a portrait right section in the Copyright Act, which describes that publication of portraits taken of a person might be prohibited. There are several situations which legally do allow the use of such a portrait, but one of the possible illegal uses is if the portrait conflicts with the personal interests of the person(s) shown in the image.

Those interests could be anything, and it's again up to the judge (the courts) to decide if those interests are at stake. Therefore, the general rule is, since you cannot know if you are violating the interests of the person in the image by publishing it without permission, it is wise to not push your luck or ask for permission. For example, maybe someone is (accidentally) seen together with someone of questionable reputation, or in a location where he/she should not have been at the time.

The very clear explanation of the Dutch Portrait-right section of the Copyright law can be found here in a Google translation, so it will read somewhat crooked here and there, but you'll get the gist of it.

People tend to forget that rights also come with obligations, i.e. to use those rights with proper care and consideration for others.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rand47]

No I don't see a phone.  What may appear to be the edge of a phone looks to me like a turned up collar on his dress shirt.

If it is a phone, where is the other collar point on his shirt?

That's my conclusion on close inspection as well.

Rand

[RSL]

Here's a fairly common reaction to being photographed on the street.

[stamper]

Russ that is one situation that I probably would have avoided. At the end of the day common sense plays a big part in what you choose to photograph, or not. Personally I don't like using a wide angle prime lens because to use it properly and fill the frame one has to invade someone elses space and I try to avoid that.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Russ that is one situation that I probably would have avoided. At the end of the day common sense plays a big part in what you choose to photograph, or not. Personally I don't like using a wide angle prime lens because to use it properly and fill the frame one has to invade someone elses space and I try to avoid that.

I agree, although the size of that 'space' differs between cultures, and local tradition.

Anyway, Russ can consider himself lucky that the subject had no money for bullets in his gun ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

    "What gives, stamper?

    You ask an open question on an open forum, and then react with defensive indignation when you don't like the responses.

    No wonder I seldom offer comment on your pictures.

    Rob C"
..........................................................

I will tell what gives Rob. The image wasn't posted for critique but to illustrate a question. The question being is it unethical to post an image that has someone with a possible affliction in it? You completely ignored that and attacked the image. I wasn't asking for a critique. Calling it ugly wasn't smart? I had a genuine concern about the image and Russ's post about taking images and deciding not to post was the answer I was looking for.

stamper,

I sometimes don't quite know if you are making statements or asking questions  - not at all clear.

However, such doubts aside, it would be interesting to know your ideas of where the lines between thinking an image ugly because of its content, execution, concept, or even the moral quality of the stimulation to make it lie, and when it may or may not be legitimate to voice opinions on same. Perhaps you prefer answers in the mode of the curate's egg? However, in the case of this image, ugly probably covers all points. Whether the final composition was or was not your intention, whether or not that poor guy just wandered into shot by accident or not doesn't matter: what matters is that you decided to press ahead with it, and publish the result, which is the only relevant evidence any of us here has on which to form opinion.

Somehow, I get the distinct impression that you already knew the answer to your own question, indicated by your point about Russ's reply, which leads me to wonder why you bothered to start the thread in the first place; your gut instinct had already told you no, scrap it. Do you see what I mean?

Rob C

[RSL]

Russ that is one situation that I probably would have avoided. At the end of the day common sense plays a big part in what you choose to photograph, or not. Personally I don't like using a wide angle prime lens because to use it properly and fill the frame one has to invade someone elses space and I try to avoid that.

Actually it was a 50mm on an Epson R-D1, which was an early attempt to compete with the Leica M8, which, considering that first Leica digital's gross imperfections wasn't too hard. The thing actually was a split-image rangefinder, just like its Leica brother. Unfortunately it had its own shortcomings, so I sold it. But at the moment, with the Pen-F and a 25mm Leica Summilux, which, on the Pen is the equivalent of the 50 on my Leica film cameras, I'm back to where I want to be. I agree that wide angle is carrying things too far, but 50 mm gives you normal perspective, which is what I prefer.

Oh, and this is the kind of situation I normally avoid too, but this guy was asking for it. The only reason I posted the picture here is because he's unrecognizable. His finger covers his face.

[Rob C]

Actually it was a 50mm on an Epson R-D1, which was an early attempt to compete with the Leica M8, which, considering that first Leica digital's gross imperfections wasn't too hard. The thing actually was a split-image rangefinder, just like its Leica brother. Unfortunately it had its own shortcomings, so I sold it. But at the moment, with the Pen-F and a 25mm Leica Summilux, which, on the Pen is the equivalent of the 50 on my Leica film cameras, I'm back to where I want to be. I agree that wide angle is carrying things too far, but 50 mm gives you normal perspective, which is what I prefer.

Oh, and this is the kind of situation I normally avoid too, but this guy was asking for it. The only reason I posted the picture here is because he's unrecognizable. His finger covers his face.

"Actually it was a 50mm on an Epson R-D1,"

Never knew of anyone who actually owned one; seemed, on the face of it, to be quite an interesting idea.

Rob

[RSL]

I misspoke when I said I had a 50mm lens on it, Rob. I just did some research to refresh my memory about the details on that camera. It had a 1.53 crop, 6 mpx sensor, and the Voigtländer lens I had on it was 35mm, which gave me the equivalent of a bit over 53mm on a full frame; close enough to satisfy my 50mm eye.

After working with Leicas for many years the fact that it was a split-image rangefinder made me feel like I was coming home. But there were some problems with it. Don't remember what they were. I put it up for sale and sold it at a slight loss. Even now I sometimes think about going back to a Leica, but it strikes me Leitz has become more a jewelry company than a camera company.

Here's one of my all-time favorite pictures from that camera. I was at an art show in Orlando, and my wife and I were sitting down for a rest. This kid came bopping by, blowing bubbles. She stopped in front of us, turned, did this, then ran off. I had roughly a second to get this shot. It was enough, though the focus isn't exact and the sharpness fanatics will go bonkers.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Focus doesn't matter. It's a magical shot.

But Russ, you do realize that that 53mm lens actually ever so slightly cropped the image that a 50 would have gotten. Was that ethical???   

Eric

[RSL]

What's that old saying, Eric? "Close enough for government work?"

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What's that old saying, Eric? "Close enough for government work?"

[stamper]

stamper,

I sometimes don't quite know if you are making statements or asking questions  - not at all clear.

However, such doubts aside, it would be interesting to know your ideas of where the lines between thinking an image ugly because of its content, execution, concept, or even the moral quality of the stimulation to make it lie, and when it may or may not be legitimate to voice opinions on same. Perhaps you prefer answers in the mode of the curate's egg? However, in the case of this image, ugly probably covers all points. Whether the final composition was or was not your intention, whether or not that poor guy just wandered into shot by accident or not doesn't matter: what matters is that you decided to press ahead with it, and publish the result, which is the only relevant evidence any of us here has on which to form opinion.

Somehow, I get the distinct impression that you already knew the answer to your own question, indicated by your point about Russ's reply, which leads me to wonder why you bothered to start the thread in the first place; your gut instinct had already told you no, scrap it. Do you see what I mean?

Rob C

You are the one who thinks it to be ugly not me. I didn't ask for a critique but you seem to be determined to give one. Scrap it? Why should I? Just because you don't like it? On Flickr it was well received so I will let it live.