Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST WEEK, I was on my way down Dublin’s Aston Quay, when I passed a strung-out looking couple having a row on the footpath near the Merchant’s Arch. On the other side of the road was someone with his smartphone in his hand, filming them. Perhaps the footage thus generated has already made it onto YouTube, where it has no doubt generated equal measures of condescending mirth and calls for the mass extermination of heroin addicts.
I didn’t really think about the incident until a week later, when I came across this article by Sophie Wilkinson, who was photographed without her permission, the photograph later posted to a Facebook group called Women Who Eat On Tubes.
The article details her efforts to have the photo removed, first by contacting the man who posted the snap, and then by contacting Facebook. Ultimately, it was only because he reposted her photo more than once (thereby slipping into the terrain of harassment) that she prevailed upon Facebook to remove it.
It turns out this Facebook group has received quite a bit of attention lately, much of it focusing on the tangled relationship between gender, the “male gaze” and issues around eating and self-image. These are all valid angles to take (the whole area is loaded with misogynistic implications), but the issue need not have anything to do with gender. In 2011, an Irish site called LuasCrush was shut down following intervention by the Data Protection Commissioner, who was less than pleased by the idea of user-submitted photos of men snapped on the Luas being posted online for the delectation of strangers.
The legal principles here involve privacy and data protection. Privacy tends not to arise when you’re in a public place (though the rule is not quite that simple. Naomi Campbell won a breach of privacy case against the Daily Mirror for photos snapped as she entered a Narcotic Anonymous meeting – a public place, yes, but an occasion where it was reasonable to expect some privacy). But that is not the end of the matter, whatever the owners of “stranger shaming” sites might like to suggest.
Under Data Protection law, you have a right not to have your personal data collected, published or otherwise processed without your consent. This includes your image, and therefore covers photographs. There is an exemption to the Data Protection Acts for the purposes of art or journalism – otherwise, it’s hard to see how any kind of photo-journalism could exist – but a website devoted to ridiculing women (and only women, interestingly enough) who eat on public transport is unlikely to avail of this public interest defence.
Data Protection laws are a creature of European Union law, so the principles are the same Europe-wide (though the zeal with which they are enforced varies wildly). Sophie Wilkinson seems to have been short-changed in her interactions with Facebook, who ought to have been aware that there were data protection issues involved. It might prove useful to draw the group’s existence to the UK’s Information Commissioner, who ought to have a view on it.
Aside from the legalities, what is at issue here is power. Women, for example, often have more reason to feel vulnerable in public places than men do. To act otherwise and take unauthorised snaps at will is to abuse that vulnerability. Reams have been written about the power of the gaze, the imbalance between the viewer and the viewed. Most shared unauthorised images depend for their popularity on just this disparity. The attractive deriding the unattractive. Men leering at women’s bodies. The middle class sneering at the dress sense or social graces of the working class.
The issue is this – if you go around taking photos of people without their knowledge, you are being a creep. This is whether you have a pretentious justification for the practise, like this guy, or you are using the images for your private sexual gratification, like these guys.
Ultimately then, this is a social question. Technology has moved forward so quickly that social taboos and etiquette have not yet solidified around the issue. The ubiquity of the smartphone means that not only can photos be taken more easily, but that they are taken more often. I have taken more photos in the past month than I did in entire years of my pre-smartphone life.
This in turn has led to an increasing belief that exposure to a lens is part and parcel of being out in public. When all it takes is one additional click to upload a snap to the internet, you have a culture where none of us can say for sure how many of ourselves might exist on a phone or server somewhere. What is needed is not law – we have law enough already – but a consensus to take the notion of privacy in a public place seriously. We might start by not passing on media made without the subject’s consent. After all, the next time, it could be you.
Fergal Crehan is a barrister practising in Data Protection law. He writes on legal subjects at www.fergalcrehan.com
Follow Opinion & Insight on Twitter: @TJ_Opinions
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You think this is bad now just wait till everyone starts wearing Google glass & other such devices.
It’s not the photographing of a stranger that is the issue, it’s what purpose it is used for afterwards. Some of the most artistic,entertaining and classic photographs ever published were taken without the subjects knowledge. The Evening Press published candid street photographs taken in Dublin throughout its history and they were always wonderful, providing us with marvellous impromptu shots of daily life in the city. It should be the use of photos to defame or ridicule the subject that should be regulated, not the taking of the photos themselves…
I agree totally & that’s fine. We are constantly being recorded anyway in public places by CCTV. The worrying thing is that as Google glass becomes more adopted by the public then there will be a lot more stealth videos & photos being taken of unsuspecting passers by. Even people who come into your home will be wearing them. This technology will open up a whole new area of abuse by so called “creeps”.
They are working on a video cache loop app (I don’t know the technical term) for google glass. Anyway, it records on a 30 second loop continuously, so if you witness something you can say, save the PREVIOUS 30 seconds. You could only imagine what YouTube would be like. Also, what if someone walk into the public toilet wearing google glass?
I’ve always looked forward to the next technological advance in communications. But I’m allergic to the thought of google glasses, or anything more than what smart phones have already brought. I sense many more are in the same boat.
Ok, I understand your concern with shaming people using social networks. Using it as a negative instrument. But street photography has been around for a lot longer than the smart phone or social networks. I feel you are putting a label on people who take photos of others on the street as ‘creeps’. It is an art. I make a living from street photography, I respect the ‘strangers’ I take photos of and if they say no that’s fine. Documenting life on the street, a public place, is not a crime. You are not invading people’s privacy. It’s public. There are people out there that will take pleasure in others misfortune and share it, but don’t cause everyone out there on the street with camera as up to no good. http://www.flickr/murdog36/
You said it a lot better than myself. Exactly what I was trying to say.
Sorry for the plug, that’s http://www.flickr.com/murdog36/ . Why would you call the street photography I do as been shot by a ‘creep’
No, there’s nothing creepy about taking photographs of incredibly ugly old Asian men and random young wans walking down the street. Ahem.
It pays the bills ;-)
Nice work there Mark. Where abouts are you based?
@Mark- I think the issues are consent & intent.
Your street photography is lovely, but most of your subjects are looking at the camera, their consent is implied by their expressions. Henri Cartier Bresson and Robert Doisneau rarely – if ever- sought consent, but they were artists, their intent was to create art.
People with iphones are not photographers. They (mostly) don’t seek consent, or attempt to create art.
BTW, I don’t believe paparazzi are photographers either, just opportunists with cameras.
As Sean Connery said in ‘The Untouchables’ : Here Endeth The Lesson …
“…if they say no that’s fine.”
Assuming you mean that you ask them first and don’t photograph them if they say no, then that’s fine. It’s also 100% obvious that that’s not what this article is about.
On the other hand, if you mean that they don’t say no because you didn’t ask them, then that is what this article is about and I regret to inform you that you are a creep.
Which one is it?
@Olaf – Thanks. I’m from Dublin but live in north east China.
@Mick – it’s not always the case. I write about this on different forums. You have to be a confident photographer, to let people on the street know you are a photographer. People then accept this and carry on as normal. Being sneaky, hiding in the bushes with a long lens is not the way. People will get angry. Once they are aware I’m a photographer, I don’t ask permission. I photograph many people as they walk into my scene without them knowing too. But I’m not hiding it. As for the iPhone, there is an American photographer that shoots whole weddings on his iPhone. So it’s hard to blame the camera. As you said, it’s their intent.
@Zozzy – I don’t you know much about street photography as an art or the laws of a public place. If you look at my photos, are they creepy? The paper you read every, shows pictures from photojournalists on the streets around the world. They are not asking permission, they are telling the world the reality of the streets we live in. Whether it be Afghanistan, Ireland or China. Not creeps
Look, up until about 10-15 years ago hardly anyone took photos for non-commercial reasons except at functions, events or holidays. Those were primarily for private enjoyment and sharing.
As no-one can control what happens with their material once it’s posted I am totally in favour of respecting people’s entitlement to privacy. This has nothing to do with “street photography” in the traditional sense.
What I find worrying is that it is not photography we are talking about; I reckon about 98% of those happily and senselessly snapping away would not be able to take a decent shot with a conventional camera, never mind resizing them but instead sending 5mb pics of meaninglessness clogging up folks’ email boxes.
And it is exactly this mindlessness of using a medium, the entitlement they see which results in ignorance of privacy (hey – not everybody wants to be seen by social media addicts) that is worrying.
I completely agree. But how do we differentiate between mindless snapping and photography. I hold weekly photography walks where I live every week and it’s open for anyone to join with whatever camera you have. It is mostly street photography that we do. Someone turned up last week with their samsung phone. Now, it takes good photos but because of it’s appearance, they might not be taken seriously. Even though they are taking the photography walk serious and creating great photos, how do we tell the difference between the so called ‘creeps’? Is it how they use the picture afterwards? I think it’s the sites that need to be shut down. The ones that only promote negativity and humiliation. To ban the photography aspect of things, is going in the totally wrong direction IMO.
American photographers using iPhones…sure you couldn’t be up to that lot…
Just to be 100% clear Mark: do you or do you not obtain informed consent from your subjects before you take, publish and/or sell their photos?
I worked at matches in Croke Park as a photographer back in the eighties. I took loads of photos without the crowd’s permission. What solution would you suggest Zozzy?
I would suggest that Mark simply answers my question.
Regarding Croke Park: although I haven’t checked, attendees presumably consent to the use of their image through the match ticket terms and conditions. That is certainly the case for many ticketed entertainment events. Also, the GAA prohibits any commercial use of unsanctioned photos, videos, audio, etc.
God knows how things stood in the 80s, but clearly this wasn’t the same problem then. Widespread very high resolution digital photography has changed everything. I could rock into Croke Park next weekend, snap a hundred high res crowd photos on my iPhone, spend a few hours cropping and enlarging, then launch boggerspickingtheirnoseincrokepark.com. You probably think that would be grand.
I think that your logic Zozzy means we’re going to have to start confiscating cameras from those pesky foreign tourists, especially the Americans….and their phones too, just in case…
I’m not proposing that we confiscate anything from anyone. If I was proposing something, it would be that we all agree it’s rude to take photographs of strangers without asking their permission.
This useful article reminds people that taking photos of people without asking is very rude and you shouldn’t do it. If you don’t already understand that, or if you think you’re exempt because you’re (chuckle) “an artist” or (guffaw) “a street photographer”, then please understand that most people just don’t want you taking photos of them without asking.
What about street photography? I believe this article gives street photographers ( artists not peeping toms ) a hard time and sets the public against them. I don’t agree with taking someone’s photograph to be used for vile purposes but there has to be a happy medium drawn somewhere when it comes to using ones camera in public.
A photo showed on my Facebook feed earlier of a young man who appears to have leaning & physical difficulties asking ppl to tag someone “who’d ….” this young man hopefully has no idea that this is out there,because the comments underneath are vile, hurtful and just plain wrong. Imagine reading those things about yourself ,your child/brother etc,there are tonnes of similar posts from lost phones,shaming site (sl*t usually, bless em, no man wh**re sites just yet oddly)everybody does stupid embarrassing crap,have resting bi#ch face,some even dare to eat….on the tube! but to see your weakest,most vulnerable & unattractive self plastered all over social media to be torn apart in such a personal and often hateful way by ur peers can and does do real lasting damage.
There are man wh*re sites. I’ve been posted on several of them.
No man wh*re sites? Well if you’d bothered to spend even 5 seconds checking…
https://www.facebook.com/dontdatehimgirl
http://reportyourex.com/featured-video-archives/dont-date-him-girl/
And here’s those progressive feminists over at Jezebel promoting an app that allows women (and only women) to anonymously (of course) rate the sexual performance of men
http://jezebel.com/sex-yelp-new-app-lets-ladies-anonymously-rate-and-revi-512872745
There’s LOADS of man wh*re sites! Like “Don’t date him, girl”. Spend 5 seconds googling and you’ll find them.
There’s also apps that allow women to (anonymously) review the sexual performance of men. How creepy is that?! http://jezebel.com/sex-yelp-new-app-lets-ladies-anonymously-rate-and-revi-512872745
Tbh I’m gay so I’m good without the man who’re photographic evidence ta. It never seem to be so public IMO when it’s men,seen the sex rating sites of FB too, you really do have to wonder. Im so glad I’m not a 16 year old today.There seems to be no boundaries on anything nothing is personal or private.
Yes I no,I see it :9)
Last year i caught a guy taking a sneaky picture on his phone of my missus’ arse,and was midway through texting it to a mate when i leaned over to his missus and told her,now that was a good craic, watchin him follow her out of the pub with the tail between his legs!
There are few legitimate reasons why people take pictures of strangers but I think it is the way in which these images are used online and not necessarily the practice itself that is the problem.
I think that the endless amounts of leery misogynist pages on Facebook are the fundamental the issue here. The photo isn’t a problem unless it is shared or framed in an inappropriate context online. I can see why when people see something like this happening we immediately think that stopping it at the source is the solution but in this situation I don’t think it is.
In practical terms policing people taking pictures and policing the internet are both equally improbable. I think that making the frankly ridiculous pages like “Girls Eating on Tubes” less acceptable is realistically the only way of stopping them.
You mean like all those misogynistic magazines like ‘Heat’ with their multi page spreads on ‘celebrity sweat patches’?
Thank god women would never buy and perpetuate such crap …
You’ve obviously never seen those extreme celebrity close-ups in Heat etc
It baffles me and slightly offends me that women do read that crap. I don’t get it, most of the time it’s about trying to drag someone down, or building them up to *be* dragged back down, it just reminds me of the girls prone to being bullies when I was in secondary school, painfully insecure and more intent on dragging everyone down to their level rather than trying to raise themselves up.
It is perfectly legal to take photos of people in public places without their consent. To say that “if you go around taking photos of people without their knowledge, you are being a creep. This is whether you have a pretentious justification for the practice, like this guy, or you are using the images for your private sexual gratification, like these guys.” What nonsense. There is a perfectly respectable genre of street-photography which I occasionally indulge in myself. To imply that all street photographers are therefore creeps or sexual deviants is highly insulting. Please check out the UK – and to the best of my knowledge, Irish – law here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html
If is legal then should not be it harassment and is weird and should not be legal
Funny when a journalist writes a sensationalist piece like this they never mention CCTV, walk around any city in the World and you’ll be on several hundred CCTV not to mention the Serco ones now are voice recording and facial recognition, so as usual people taking a photo get the flack but big brother/Private companies get free reign. What are they doing with all that footage??
THIS is what we should be talking about..
I see that over in Twitter, Christine Bohan (@ChristineBohan), supports this call to make photographing people in public places without their permission illegal. What an extraordinary stance for a journalist and deputy editor of The Journal to take. If she and Fergal had their way we’d have a law like Hungary’s which has been roundly condemned : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures
On that point, I wonder if Christine Bohan could tell us if Shutterstock (whom the journal use for photos) ensure that all photographed subjects have granted permission for their photos to be taken and published?
I agree but I don’t expect any response. The journal doesn’t interact with its audience in any meaningful way, outside of daily edge articles. Disappointing as this site promised so much more when it launched.
We could ban all cameras and painting materials.
Ye totally agree its totaly intrusive had photos taken of me in pub by guy who was idiot didnt care what I tought is it has to be illegal needs reporting to gardai
Did he steal your punctuation?
Richard, on the street it’s not a problem. In premises, such as a pub, concert, hospital, school etc photographers need to get the owner’s permission……..in simplistic terms at least.
No he stole worse he was argorant idiot who took liberties he shouldn’t be aloud do but people on here think its ok to do but some idiot just walked up to them and started taking taking photos how would they like the intrusion of their privacy
Sorry Richard, can’t really comment on that as I’m not sure what your are saying.
I think it was something to do with band camp, a flute and a cat?
Can’t be sure though …????
@Joseph. ******You’re******
John, momentary indecision………you’re or you are ? End result ? Stupidity. No excuses. I am duly chastened.
yesterday a man started taking pictures of my house with a mobile, my neighbour asked him what he was doing & he just walked off…now feeling a bit freaked about it all…why oh why does he want a pic of my house sure can he not just google it?
Are you renting by any chance?
Ah sure, a bit a creepin’ never hurt anybody. Aren’t most people willingly puttin’ their entire lives up on t’internet anyway.
Absolute nonsense.
Photographers are just trainee paedophiles as the old joke goes.
Paul, not particularly funny.
You’re just annoyed because half the photos on your facebook are of little boys. :D
Your old joke…nobody else’s.
One of the greatest photographers of the twentieth century was Henri Cartier Bresson. He was a master of street photography. If Fergal had his way, Cartier Bresson would have been criminalised as he didn’t ask for people’s permission before photographing them. Check out what we would have missed out on here:
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL53ZMYN
Slane girl with all it’s vitriol and madness, nobody mentioned the creep taking the pics, and it’s one thing to take them it’s another step to post them. It’s the age of the creep but it’s actually seen as socially acceptable.
The Journal.ie recently ran a topic celebrating photo’s taken on O’Connell Street 50 years ago. Did all the people in all those pictures give their express consent ? Did all the people who appear in all pics on Journal.ie give consent ? We’re they even asked ? No way. Like all media, Journal.ie has double standards when it suits.
This word “creep” has become very popular recently. Would anyone care to define please…
It’s when a man pays attention to you and you don’t find him attractive. If you DO find him attractive he’s “romantic”
If someone makes money from people who didnt asked to be photographed (yes theres that law bout no expectation of privacy in public…)
Seems fair to say they should pay the person.
If not yeah, its just creepy
Only if it’s for commercial use do you need to ask the person to sign a model release. Photojournalism, art, you don’t have to ask.
If you don’t wanna be filmed/photographed the don’t make a spectacle of yourself in public.
My neighbour has been taking pictures of me, my kids, my car and my house! Oddly she’s been having her 11 year old daughter do it too! Some people are just plain creepy..
If we have a right to privately conductour actions without someone gathering information on our movements do we not have the sane rights online? It really bothers me that google knows everything I look at online, purchase online, post online etc. I feel like I am losing a right if choice when I am searching online as they present me with things they think I will like based on other preferences. This stops me from discovering new things, different news stories etc.
I’m a photographer and now a street photographer. I take photos as a form or art and not to make a joke of the subject. I think the main problem we have is fellow photographers puting a title on the photograph. Sometimes a title is nice if it’s friendly but when you take the piss out of the subject then the trouble begins. ‘Women who eat on tubes’ is not a good subject to be fair. I head out with a street photography group in Dublin and our subjects range from feet to hats to shadows. We do not degrade our subjects. Out organiser is very clear on that. There are people with cameras and there are photographers.
Strange that the Facebook Page the Journalist writes about was setup on 8th April 2014 has 14 Likes?? he must have been stuck for a Story….& got 14 in the Office to like it?
Interesting article…….when visiting my gym this morning staff were recordin photos of customers to place on their computer………..without obtaining permission.
Not so sure that this is a breach of my human rights and an offence under the data protection act.
Any views ?
Patrick
After all, the next time, it could be you.” and so? why spreading so much fear for what? i am in a public square or street, i can take picture to the whole scenario framing at least 20 people passers by. Who can stop me? What we can do? waht consensus? Once i take portrait very close, i ask permission. that is ok,. But i cannot ask permission for fast street scenes. Otherwise we should abolish all this photography field. Of course, is part of the common sense of each of us photogprahers to portrait people who are doing something that can embarass us if published, or us as well (sick people, homeless, poort people beggin, or disabled people)
Strange that the Page in Question was only setup on 8th April & has 14 Likes?? seems like it was a Bad News Day?
This is a video I put together for an Irish street photography group https://vimeo.com/91119114
We photograph on the streets of Dublin once a month.
have your say