| Author | Message | ||
     Lauren Weinstein (Lauren) Moderator Username: Lauren Post Number: 35 Registered: 06-2003 |
Greetings. Various ancient civilizations, and a surprising number of people in contemporary cultures, have believed that images possess the power to steal one's soul, to imprison it in paint, emulsion, or (in today's terms) image data. It's generally acknowledged by the scientific community that cameras do not have any direct soul-stealing power (with the possible exception of the 1960s' infamous Polaroid "Swinger" camera). Yet, I'm increasingly fielding e-mail and phone calls from persons who seem to believe that photographs taken in public can do them serious damage, and both legislatures and courts are moving to impose limits on previously public photos. These range from preventing people from taking photographs or videos of bridges and highways to ordering a professed pedophile not to take photos of children (despite his lack of any criminal record and claims not to act on his impulses). There are many other examples between these two data points, as well. Some of this flaring up of photography concerns was triggered by 9/11 ("Who would take photos of bridges except potential terrorists?" is the implicit assumption). Lately, more negative reaction appears to have been triggered by Google Maps "Street View," which while not the first street-level Internet photo application, is in my opinion the slickest and best implemented -- and it's those very qualities that seems to freak many people out totally. I'm on record as not seeing significant privacy problems with the current Street View implementation, and I believe that restrictions on public photography can do serious harm to public safety. However, there are those in the privacy and broader Internet community who strongly disagree with me on this issue, pointing for example to the recent case of a teacher being humiliated by an anonymous, "dishonestly" edited YouTube video, among many other examples (a particularly egregious example to be sure, but perhaps more specifically related to YouTube editorial policies -- an important topic in and of itself -- rather than broader public photography issues). It can be argued that the legal concepts we have of privacy and any abilities to "control one's image" (or lack of such abilities) have been outdated by the rise of instant Internet distribution of photos, YouTube, and the like, where perceived "damage" can be done almost immediately upon an item being posted, and even later removal of such materials from their original distribution point does little to stem their continuing flow around the Net. This is an extremely difficult problem, where "simple" solutions are likely to be the least palatable in the long run. Some observers argue that celebrities already have considerable means to control uses of their images, and that anti-paparazzi laws in some locales are also largely aimed at helping that same demographic, rather than ordinary folks. I personally remain highly dubious regarding how significant new photographic "controls" can be imposed without triggering massively unwarranted restrictions and potentially very dangerous collateral damage. I really don't like the idea of public photographic restrictions except perhaps in extremely narrow and rare circumstances. But, given that judges and legislators are already moving toward broader controls, intellectual honesty requires that we ask the related key questions. The questions: Is it desirable -- and practical -- to impose relatively broad restrictions on public still or motion photography of individuals, property, or other locations, and/or the posting of such imagery on the Internet or in other venues? If you're in favor of such restrictions, how far would you go? How would you impose and monitor such restrictions? How would you propose that the balance between the public's "right to know" and private concerns be suitably balanced? Would such restrictions be starting us down a slippery slope toward making virtually all public photography illegal, with potentially unpredictable consequences? Or, do you have a formula that you believe could impose your desired restrictions without such damage? I'd be very interested in your responses and discussion. Thanks very much. --Lauren-- | ||
| Howard S Shubs (Denim) Member Username: Denim Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2007 |
As a person who likes bridges and takes pictures of them, I clearly have "issues" with people who would declare my hobby illegal. I tend to post selected images on Wikipedia. Will Wikipedia become illegal because it has such pictures? Some of the images I'm currently working on have trains on the bridges. Does that mean the banners want to punish bridge fans, train fans, both, or neither? | ||
| John David Galt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered Guest |
It is probably too late to get back the privacy we've lost to public photography. So instead, I'd like to see some reforms to regularize the practice: 1) Legalize photography in cases where it's now illegal. For example, it should always be legal for citizens to record any encounter with police, so they'll have some remedy if police misbehave. 2) Where a lack of privacy enables unjust bullying, make sure there are laws against that practice. For instance, it should be a crime to publicize the identities of people who visit a controversial business (strip club, abortionist, lab performing animal experiments, whatever) in order to bully them and/or the business into shutting down its (legal) activities. That's terrorism and should be punished as terrorism. 3) Similarly, there need to be laws to prevent a present or potential employer, landlord, etc. from discriminating based on data about your personal life that are none of their business. This kind of thing already happens and is nearly impossible to stop. | ||
| Geoff Kuenning (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered Guest |
These issues are naturally of great concern to amateur and professional photographers. Art photography involves taking pictures of nearly everything that generates or reflects light, and arbitrary restrictions can seriously interfere with perfectly legitimate pursuits. Some countries have fairly severe restrictions. My understanding is that in France, it's illegal to take a picture of any private person in a public place. That rule certainly addresses a number of unpleasant possibilities, such as pedophiles building databases, or mean people posting unflattering images on the Internet. But it also leads to absurd results. How can a tourist take a snapshot of ANY Paris landmark without capturing a stranger and violating the law? How can you take pictures of a sporting event? Even photographing your spouse on a city street would be illegal if a stranger happened to walk by at the wrong moment. Nor can these defects be cured by writing the law to make the photos OK if the stranger isn't the "main subject". A picture from a high-resolution camera can be cropped and enlarged so that something in the background is the only thing that remains (go back to the old movie "Blowup" for an example). Although the Internet increases the speed of dissemination, even that factor isn't new. Gossip in a small town moves at the speed of light and can never be erased, yet we still insist on after-the-fact remedies for slander. In the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should retain the current system of freedom. | ||
| Alan Scheinine (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered Guest |
There should not be restrictions on photos of public places. Pictures of infrastructure is a common theme of photography. A friend of mine, as a tourist began to take a picture of the FBI building in Washington, D.C. but someone came out of the building to say that is was not permitted -- but of course anyone who needed such a photo could use a hidden camera. The restrictions make illegal what should be considered normal activity. On the other hand Susan Sontag in "On Photography" described how capturing a moment distorts the image of a person. A facial expression is a movement in time which looks distorted when just one time slice is captured. The same applies in the abstract sense of capturing just a slice of a person's activity. So street-level scenes for a map on the Internet should avoid including people in order not to show an occasional individual that is recognizable and in the act of scratching his ass. I propose this as a policy of good manners and not as a legal imposition. | ||
| Richard Brooks (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered Guest |
Freedom of speech. I do not see why this should be banned. Intrusion into places where you have reasonable and traditional expectations of privacy (toilets) excepted, my opinion is that this should be allowed. | ||
| Anonymous |
If my image or an image of my property is used for profit by another entity, be it a person or a company, why should I not be compensated? As a photographer, if I take a picture of someone and use it for public display, I must obtain a model release. This is standard practice in the industry. | ||
| arthur cordell (Arthur) Member Username: Arthur Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2007 |
A fundamental economic and social transformation is taking place in much of the world. Social and technological forces– referred to in a short-hand way as globalization and networked societies and economies –are fundamental drivers of change. We are moving from an economy of tangibles to an economy of intangibles. We are moving from a local economy to a global economy. We are moving from a time of closely held information to a networked society where information is broadly held and shared in near real time. Responsibilities become more difficult to define as jurisdictional boundaries become blurred; as production and consumption move from within one country to anywhere in the world; as networks lead to more and more shared information; as multiple actors participate in everyday events. Anybody can interact with anyone at anytime anywhere; location is a URL or e-mail address and is thus geographically insensitive. The strong implication that follows is that jurisdiction may no longer be an important factor. Information and communication technologies are transformative. They change the way in which we see the world. They change our understanding of who we are. They create new situations which are unfamiliar. The ways in which information moves at the speed of light, the number of people who have access, the ways in which value is added and so on, all mean that the ways in which we have seen the world are more and more becoming out of date. If a revolution can be defined as a very large change in a very short time period then information technology can be said to be revolutionary. It is transforming the way we work, live and play. It is blurring boundaries everywhere. Traditional notions of privacy are changing. If downloading of music, bootlegging of movies and other copyright issues are unenforceable (where money and power are at stake), then how will issues of privacy be enforced in a networked world? Transformative technologies transform cultures. Our is presently going through such a radical and rapid change. | ||
| Jerome Ravetz (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered Guest |
I am reminded of Joe Tainter's theory about the decline of civilizations: that they introduce ever more complexity to solve their problems, and eventually become paralyzed. This case is not quite the same; here the sequence seems to be panic triggered by some bad cases, followed by very broad remedies. In some cases it is for more publicity ('Megan's Law'), but generally it is repressive, as the 'three strikes and you're out'. Whether the intention behind all these reactions is a dictatorship, hardly matters. We are going through it just now in England, with the violence among some teenagers. Given that these are kids with no hope of a place (or even a job!), no social facilities, dirt-cheap alcohol and junk food, the 'knee-jerk' will only produce more heavy-handed policing, etc. This is really why all those nasty problems require ‘debate’. There are real fears out there, for which the simplistic solutions only put the lid on and make things worse in the long run. People with broader vision must respect that the impetus is coming from a genuine place, but must also have arguments to show that it is leading to a bad scene. |