Most problems arise not from the act of photography itself, but the
intended purpose of the image. Or more likely, the *eventual* use of the image.
There is also a cultrual aspect to this. For instance, many Australian
aboriginal cultures do not speak the names of the dead nor view their
images. Most discussion on lists like ours is always from a western perspective.
What about people's right to privacy?
I just read a newspaper article that talked about Clinton's daughter
dining out at a Sydney seafood restaurant during the Olympic games.
There were over 40 security guards and minders there. Compare this to
when Australia's richest man and his son go dining, they go alone. Not
even a chauffer. "Ours is truely the lucky country" the story concluded.
Actually, the notion of a public place is quite interesting. In USA, who
"owns" public spaces? Who owns the land that nobody else can lay title
to? In Australia all unclaimed land is owned by "the Crown." Hence the
problem we have here with native title rights etc. <sigh>
Vaughan
--
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:34:27 +0000
> From: "Giles" <cnocbui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] Street shooting with the 24/2.8
>
> My ethical view on it is this.
>
> People out in a public place, are there accepting without thought
> that other people will see them.
>
> Why should they object if their image is frozen in time and then made
> available for others to see. Anyone viewing the photogrph could have seen
> what the photographer saw had they themselves been there when the photo
> was taken.
>
> I can not see why someone who appears in a photograph should have a
> valid objection to someone seeing them via a photograph when they would
> not have an objection to someone seeing them in person at the time.
>
> In a non public place a person should have every right to object to being
> photographed.
>
> Giles
>
> John Hudson wrote:
>
> > Is there any consensus on the ethics of this kind of street photography?
> > After all, it is pretty much "right in your face" and I am wondering if
> > the photographer is intruding into the subject's personal space over
> > which the subject could have a valid objection?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|