We Should Ban Street Photography? (Picture This! Photography Podcast)

Go to squarespace.com/Tony & save 10% off your first website or domain with code “Tony”
HUGE SALE! Check out our photography books, videos, shirts, and more: northrup.photo
Chelsea & Tony Northrup each take a side and argue their points: should we allow street photography or should we ban it and consider it a violation of people's privacy?

[@jamiewindsor]

In the UK, up-skirting is illegal. This has no bearing on street photography.

[@normanschultz1142]

Not if you don't get caught :D

[@solomongilbert3186]

Ey it's Jamie Wndsor! Your videos are super helpful dude. The woman who got upskirting bill passed is also super cool and does a bunch of great stuff. Worth shouting her out: Gina Martin.

[@jamiewindsor]

@@solomongilbert3186 Totally. Gina Martin is an absolute hero.

[@solomongilbert3186]

@@jamiewindsor I found her through some of her sister's work - I think she's a writer on HIGNFY or something. Idk they got a cool podcast.

[@therealsergio]

A PRIVATE property is a space owned and declared not to be public, that includes inside your home, and up your skirt. Of course such photos are an invasion of privacy. But the delusion of privacy in public is just that. If you go out in your underwear to get a newspaper, you declare that your (ill-chosen) presentation is public consumption. Public street walkers - beware.

[@kentsaga6946]

Street photography is not just documenting people and history. It is the artistic expression of the photographer of people in an urban community mostly done in a candid fashion. Asking a person to take their picture is a portrait.

[@HappyHubris]

Boy, wait until Tony hears about the pervasive public security cameras and facial recognition technology in New York.

[@jameshumphrey9939]

yes, and Neural link coming that will record everything you see. Perhaps when in public the public should have to recognize others rights to photograph them and take precautions out of privacy and private settings

[@kj-marslander]

you're watching too much Person of Interest

[@lavluvlov]

or the 100 of thousands in China !!! all plug with reconnaissance programs in 5G...

[@Schrsmnymkr]

Indeed it goes both ways, does making street photography also make it illegal to have surveillance on people walking the streets? This really is a great debatable topic imo.

[@spearofneptune]

If you want to hear Tonys opinion on privacy go and watch 500k in cameras stolen around the 20 minute mark ;)

[@mikesmithch]

I have personnel boundaries for street photography: 1) no children w/out parent consent, 2) no closeups without consent, 3) no photographs of persons in distress or in embarrassing situations

[@cfrost87]

I'm with you on those rules.

[@fixitrod4969]

That's great. It's not enforceable but great rules to go by.

[@ItsAMbutyoutubechangedmyname]

Yes absolutely it been times I see something where I go hold on would I be photographed at that senario and most time just question my self that I never lift the camera since just having the question pop up means it might be dam wrong

[@leokashian8846]

Would that apply to News sources. I flipped my vehicle over and was filmed by the local News Channel. I was unhurt but I was embarrassed. Should they have filmed me standing next to the vehicle?

[@fixitrod4969]

@@leokashian8846 I don't the OP was saying it should be the rules. I think they are saying that's their way to be courteous.

[@morvegil]

No, there is no expectation of privacy in public. All the stuff you are proposing has been settled in various SCOTUS cases.

[@SAFbikes]

Nah but if he says Consent, consent, consent 10 more times while clicking his heels together his terrible argument will come true!!!

[@OTPulse]

Not to mention then would put all the security cameras facing into public areas into question. But I take the stance that if you do not want unflattering photos of you (up skirt, photos of you and your mistress) then take responsibility and dress accordingly and don't be a cheating bastard or take the risks. My biggest issues with the sexist proposal its protection of women only, men can be thrown to the wolves for all they care.

[@d_dave7200]

Settled doesn't mean settled correctly. An upskirt photo should come under a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public bathrooms have a reasonable expectation of privacy after all. The fact that it doesn't is a reflection on most of our judges being old men, and archaic ideas from old case-law. You also don't get to harass someone because first amendment. So it's the issue of how harassment is being defined. The first amendment itself is totally fine. None of this is in the first amendment. It's all in interpretation.

[@morvegil]

Bathrooms aren't covered under public space. This has been established.

[@OTPulse]

@@d_dave7200 And I wouldn't trust someone like you who concluded things got dismissed because "judges are mostly old men" as if you provided any evidence that it was those old male judges who protected the creeps and not a jury also consisting of Women.

[@MrPixellated]

Tony, come on. You did street photography now you want to stop anyone else from doing it.

[@kipmay5101]

The courts have already ruled, “There can be no expectation of privacy in public spaces.”

[@gavingi5875]

So I can sit outside your house and video your family 24/7 ? Obviously this is creepy ... but where is the actual line drawn?

[@adamvaz9097]

@@gavingi5875 that's not street photography? Also you not in a public space if you are on my property. If you use Google or anything other internet service, walk pass anyone using a Google device or a device that uses Google software, I'm sorry but you signed away your privacy a long time ago.

[@kipmay5101]

@@gavingi5875 Your house is private property and is protected from invasive photography. The courts have ruled that PUBLIC spaces do not afford the same protections. We must allow people to photograph in public spaces. Of course photographers need to be ethical. The next time you witness a George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery or Rodney King incident unfolding are we supposed to turn away and not photograph? I hope we never reach that point of repression. If you don't want to be photographed stay home, otherwise accept the fact that most of us are being photographed everyday by surveillance cameras, cell phones, etc.

[@timothylatour4977]

I agree with that. Once you are in public, you are part of the public and have no expectation of privacy. But only as you present yourself in public. No one should be able to look up your skirt because you have not voluntarily presented that image to the public.

[@modernamericanpro]

100% disagree. I think that as photographers, it’s easy to overestimate the importance and impact of photographers. If you conducted a survey, I am completely sure that street photography wouldn’t even register as a problem. However, if you create a law that bans it, you are impacting EVERY human in America with a camera. The law itself would be abused in ways that would violate the 1st amendment. A few questions: What are the rules for drones? What about security cameras? What about police cameras?

[@verkantillalpesi7699]

excelent point!

[@rayspencer5025]

Agreed, think of a typical photo of a crowd at a ball game.

[@hanumanguy]

Exactly, you ban the public from taking pictures but the police and state approved journos can take pictures, easy to see where this can go bad.

[@danwoodliefphotography871]

I had someone working in a major museum ask to me to not take photos of people looking at photos in a street photography exhibit.

[@jonnydub623]

thats fair enough most museums you can't take photos inside the exhibitions

[@13julianmartin]

The irony of it is not lost with me.

[@WojciechKalka]

Hehe just live in Thailand, people love being photographed and they ask you to shoot them and thank you for doing it :).

[@touringband]

I’m with Chelsea on this. Which I gather is just using common decency, and some ethics.

[@JoePlomo]

I'm with you but oftentimes putting the power of making fair decisions on some people's hands based on ethics & common decency; can produce some interesting results since the definition of those is different for a lot of people. Speaking from experience

[@JoePlomo]

Hence why there's a Court & Justice system. If people generally made fair decisions, we wouldn't need them

[@SAFbikes]

@@JoePlomo by "power" you mean "right" ? POWER is changing the law to make it illegal to record in public to protect privacy, that POWER will be used to arrest people who record police officers who are actively committing crimes.

[@JoePlomo]

@@SAFbikes police officers are public servants, NOT average civilians going about their business and as so different conditions exist. Provisions can be built into the Law to account for that fact

[@andyzehner3347]

Unless the ethical value is indeed "common" to everyone in the society, there will need to be external rules.

[@fetchmasters]

Trying HARD not to jump on the anti-Tony bandwagon, but holy crap. Chelsea’s approach is definitely the more common-sense, freedom-loving approach.

[@jries77]

I agree. She was on point with her argument.

[@nordic5490]

Why would you photograph people without their consent ? Where is your decency mate.

[@cooloox]

@@nordic5490 If you are in public you are visible. What's the difference between looking at you or taking a photo of you and looking at that? Most street photography depicts hussle and bussle of life, shows what a city or town looks like at a certain period in time. It captures life.

[@jameshumphrey9939]

ya, he seems like a real goof there ....or/and taking the opposing view as contrast

[@NextScamdemic]

I'll say it- Tony's an asshole trying to stir up shit where there's no need to. As if photographers don't already feel intimidated to do street photography

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

I'm with Chelsea on this issue. Freedom>Security. When you step out of your home into a public space you have no expectation of privacy.

[@hw9177]

Taking pictures of someone against their will is freedom? For whom? For sure not for the person on the picture.

[@bujabusiness]

I have learned so much from you guys about photography. Often now it feels like Tony is just trying to be relevant. I miss the days when he actually was.

[@gavingi5875]

it was an easy, this position and that position. Both are valid. Tony was very relevant, just not parroting your beliefs. You are just one person, not an industry.

[@MJAdams-js7np]

Can we stop violating landscapes with overboard HDR?

[@Laudrengen]

No!

[@MJAdams-js7np]

@@Laudrengen STEP AWAY FROM THE SLIDERS.....lol.

[@philindeblanc]

What harm has ANY photo done to this day? VS What help has any photo or video done to this day? Its a landslide Tony! The idea to ban alone retracts so much of the use. This freedom should NOT EVEN be discouraged in ANY way. NEVER EVER expect laws to give you security or privacy. This will ONLY hurt holding authority accountable. I say this as people should be encouraged to have a camera at all times and this helps accountability, as there is more chance that such situations are exposed. VS, someone sees themselves the way they dont want to..Big deal!. There are ALREADY laws against taking photos from angles that are not normal view. Tony says we dont need more photos, So people dont "WORRY"? Tony is a tyrant supporter.

[@ivanchoy851]

Getting consent prior to taking a picture is no longer street photography, it is a portrait.

[@sethcashman1011]

"Is looking at someone illegal?" We're getting there.

[@ImAlecPonce]

in new york there is an old law where if a man turns around to look at a girl he can be fined. haha imagine if they start actually applying it again.

[@david.stachon]

I'm guessing you don't have kids.

[@rexplorer.official]

@@david.stachon are you implying you want to ban looking at people?

[@david.stachon]

@@rexplorer.official I'm implying that there's quite a big difference between just looking at someone and taking a picture of them.

[@rexplorer.official]

@@david.stachon “is looking at someone illegal?” -seth Your reply to the comment: “I’m guessing you don’t have kids” I would have never thought that you were implying the big difference between looking at someone and taking photos based on your reply 🤷‍♂️

[@IAMDIMITRI]

The best law is in Sweden. Anything you can see with your own eyes you are allowed to photograph or video. (Only exception is in private places as in toilets and peoples homes)

[@SteveMellorPhotography]

Pretty much the same in the U.K. we have a few laws to stop the sort of harassment being discussed in the video, though.

[@Dan1955Rl]

That's pretty much the same as here in the U.S. It's just that some people want to change things.

[@tf01134]

Once you give away your freedom and/or rights it rarely will ever be given back to you.

[@whowhatwhere]

I’m still chasing everyone down for permission from that photo I took in union square.

[@AlexOnStreets]

😂

[@randallherreraNyc]

yes .. ban , ban , ban.. ban everything , ban everyone until absolutely no one is ever offeneded or triggered in the least slightest way.. this is what is happening to stand up comedy

[@therealsergio]

A street photograph is a description of what you find in PUBLIC spaces. If I walk around with a journal and write “The young lady in a red dress fawned over her Dalmatian puppies” and continue with describing how that makes me feel, no one can ask me to rip out that page of my JOURNAL. It’s not their description, it is mine. And that description causes ZERO harm. Now people can walk around PRIVATELY feeling like whatever they decide “harms” them, but I think even a child can explain to you why sticks and stones may break my bones, but descriptions will never harm me. Free Speech is something to cherish. If when you walk by I say out loud: “pompous uptight Connecticut folks that are so smug and full of themselves”, that is a protected freedom, and a protected description. Grow up and realize it doesn’t harm you, and leave the first amendment ALONE.

[@timothylatour4977]

I agree.

[@InstructorWest]

Interestingly, the Boston Marathon bombers were identified using images shot by spectators at the event that were submitted to law enforcement.

[@KarlBrau]

If this ban on street photography existed in the past we would never have the amazing works of Vivien Meyer, Henry Cartier Bresson or Fan Ho, just to name a few...

[@gavingi5875]

no excuse for photographing my children or wife ... without my permission, which you will never get. Do so, and I know you are an uncle creepy

[@KarlBrau]

@@gavingi5875 You re in your right and you should talk to the photographer if this ever happen.

[@jgostling]

@@gavingi5875 Pics of your children, I mostly agree. Of your wife, I think it's her permission that would be needed, not yours.

[@gavingi5875]

Then you are classed as the creepy guy. Mainly because "mostly" about my children ... you are correct about my wife, she is her own person. But ... you have already shown you have no respect for my children. I obviously cannot trust you with respecting my wife. Creepy guys with cameras deserve what they get. Pretending you are "arty" doesn't wash.

[@jgostling]

@@gavingi5875 you assume me "mostly"" comment about children is of a creepy nature, when my intent was just to keep this permission thing out of situations where the children are not the main subject of the picture. I don't feel I should need permission to take a wide shot of a park from every parent of every children in the park when the children are just anonymous children. That said, I absolutely agree that permission should be secured (either before or afterwards) when a single child or a small group of them are the subject and could be identified.

[@zayacz123]

We just had months of deadly riots. In the scheme of things, street photography is very tame.

[@harrkev]

Seattle?

[@ronaldsand3000]

Most of the most famous pictures ever taken could be categorised as a form of street photography As long as the photographers intent is not for sexual or humiliation etc purposes in a public spaces, is there a problem?

[@gwal93]

We often rely on old street photography (and films) to give us authentic insights into life in those times.... when we ban street photography we are denying the future a window into the past.

[@nordic5490]

Here in Oz the laws are 'incidental' ie, out of focus in the backgound, is ok, but, the 'subject' needs permission for commercial use.

[@jeffreyhill4705]

I find it interesting whenever someone says, someone should make a law, that the assumptions that the law would be applied as they would apply it, demonstrates hubris and self delusion.

[@hautehussey]

Yep. They’re making a LOT of assumptions both in the application of the law and what art or documentation it might apply to.

[@rayspencer5025]

As a person who enforces laws I can tell you that the possible misinterpretation of the law is an everyday occurrence.

[@kh1188ish]

T&C new series: “Good Cop, Bad Straw Man”

[@SAFbikes]

Good cop, bad cop gets off bc photography in public is now BANNED cause muh safety

[@hautehussey]

@@SAFbikes id argue that people are safer WITH completely free photography.

[@rws531]

Accountability is good, but there is always the threat of becoming a surveillance state (honestly kinda already are at this point...)

[@kroomiester]

My view on it is if 1 person sees you in public, it might as well have been a million. When you leave a private space and go into the public you are now part of the surrounding landscape. Aren’t there laws against harassment? If you’re being harassed it’s different from being photographed respectfully

[@zayacz123]

The government needs to stay out of people’s social interactions. Taking pictures is taking pictures. Assault is assault. More laws are not the answer.

[@Alysuis]

Can someone take a video of you while you are at an ATM? It's just a video right?

[@rennkafer13]

@@Alysuis The ATM is taking video of you... so why not?

[@slimphotog]

I would think intentional upskirt photos are a form of harassment and as such there is already a law on the books against it.

[@zayacz123]

@@slimphotog I’m with you on that. I would think it’s some sort of assault.

[@youknowwho9247]

As a lawyer I can tell you that you got this one wrong. Street photography is not outright illegal in Germany. The legal situation around the issue is quite complicated and nuanced.

[@SilverHalides]

Is there a good summary somewhere of the relevant German legislation?

[@youknowwho9247]

@@SilverHalides Well there's lots of writing on it, but the material I could point you to is written for a professional audience with legal education and would be useless to laymen. I'm sure abbreviations and simpler explanations for the general public exist, but I'd have to ask Google for those articles just like you. Sorry for not being more helpful. :/ If you'd like it in the most basic terms possible: According to German law there are three different spheres of privacy - the public sphere, the private sphere and the intimate sphere. Those are in reference to the space a person moves in, think public location in the city, one's own garden and one's own bedroom or bathroom as examples for the three. As long as you take pictures of people in the public sphere, doing everyday, public stuff you're generally good - unless you want to publish the images, then it gets really complicated. It also matters who you're photographing. The more a person intentionally publicises themselves or the higher the level of justifiable public interest there is in what a person does (think celebrity, politician, etc), the further you can sort of intrude into their privacy without breaking the law. For children the rules are much tighter than adults. The general issue with the topic is that most of it is not necessarily codified. The rules are cached out by Supreme Court decisions regarding the right of one to any information about oneself (this is beginning to get hideous in English, it's much more elegant in German), which itself is an offspring of one's right of personhood (Art 2 I in conjunction with 1 I of the German constitution). This being dynamically interpreted by judges means that there are lots of complicated nuances to be evaluated on a case by case basis. That's why it's difficult to put a general guideline for photographers into words. It's all about the photographers freedom to create art (Art 5 III; or freedom of the press if you're a photojournalist) versus the individuals freedom to decide what information about them is publicised. Illustration: If you photograph a person as a silhouette so that their face isn't recognisable, in a public place, then clearly your right to create and publish art wins out because the subject doesn't suffer a significant infringement of their rights through that photo. If however you photograph someone while undressed in their bedroom with a telephoto lens, obviously their right to privacy trumps your artistic interests. Everything in between is a grey area that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The best starting point I can give you is the suggestion to put "Informationelle Selbstbestimmung" into Google - if you read German. If you don't and you're looking for English sources ... well, all I can say is "good luck". ;) If you want my general advice for photographers in Germany (and bear in mind that I'm not an expert; I'm specialised in criminal law, so this is really not perfectly reliable legal advice): If you want to do street photography, shoot larger groups in public spaces where no single individual stands out. If you do want to shoot single individuals, shoot silhouettes so their face isn't recognisable. Do not take pictures of moments which are personal or intimate to the degree that the subject would not want to be photographed. And if you're unsure about whatever you've got on your memory card, do not publicise without asking the subject first.

[@jeffreyhill4705]

We the state demand to inspect all of Tony’s photos to see if he violated any individual’s privacy.

[@f.n.6059]

I am a street-photographer myself, and most other street-photographers I know (and majority of street-photographers in general) are not creepy or harassing others on the street. I disagree with Tony, and inappropriate actions like the ones discussed are not considered street-photography, it's just creepy. Also, there are a lot more serious problems in the U.S. than street-photography.

[@mickr007]

Tony says "I'm going to proclaim myself the winner!" Chelsea's thinking "You should run for president" :)

[@philindeblanc]

Thats what happens when you live in populations with few people...the level of intelligence at a low bar and there are few.. So one thinks they met a genius.

[@wallystellmacher6794]

Street photography will be nearly dead if you have to ask for consent from everybody in the photo. Consent has to be in written words. Otherwise every photographer would say that he had got consent orally. The only solution will be not to be able to recognize the faces of people in the photo.

[@TheyCallMeMannes]

welcome to Germany!

[@FrankTaeger2021]

And still street photographers exist here and work in Germany. And we have a well differentiated Legal System.

[@tonyzhu403]

No. That is not photography. That is harassment… Stop the argument about Up-Skirt Photos…

[@Schrsmnymkr]

Yes but unfortunately there are predators/perverts that use the cameras for a sadistic means. It is not a strong argument for why he thinks street photography should be banned but at the same time it can't just be avoided in the encompassing topic.

[@leeds-yoga9265]

@@Schrsmnymkr yes, ban all cameras. How about guns? I guess you could batter someone's brains out with a dslr.

[@SteveMellorPhotography]

@@Schrsmnymkr Whether their are predators or not is neither here nor there. You’re describing a false equivalence. A street photographer is not a predator. A predator is not a street photographer. Banning the predatory action has no impact on the actions of legitimate street photographers.

[@Dan1955Rl]

@@SteveMellorPhotography That's the point though, they are trying to say that "some actions of legitimate street photographers should be banned because of the predatory actions of some other people".

[@wncjan]

In Denmark you can take all the pictures you want, but youbare not allowed to publish them without permission.

[@andreasbuder4417]

In Denmark there is the GDPR. So you have to explain rights and ask for consent before taking the picture.

[@FrankTaeger2021]

The GDPR Needs clarification in national laws. They usually leeway for Art, journalism, public Interest and also allow the rights Tom Control your One image. And believe me, with AI and Face recognition reaching high Levels, you will want More laws on this.

[@wncjan]

@Code Bunny Avtually GDPR speaks of identifiable, not identified.

[@wncjan]

@Code Bunny Allm I'm trying to say is that if I publish a photo of someone without his or her consent, it's against GDPR rules, even if I don't tell who it is, because other people may be able to identify them.

[@SilverHalides]

Denmark: I am not a lawyer but I believe that you are allowed to take pictures of people in public spaces and publish them without their consent, the exception being pictures of people in extreme distress or in a very vulnerable situation. I don't think this is affected by GDPR.

[@Olivyay]

I was relieved when you both started laughing at the end because I felt so much interpersonal tension in this episode !

[@howardchud9097]

Privacy laws do not include locker room, bathrooms, and dressing rooms. Already litigated. Get your facts straight. First amendment is alive

[@andrewshieldsphoto]

This one is going to get a LOT of engagement, well played. People, don't be creeps with cameras. If a photo you take could reasonably be conceived as hurtful and is identifying, don't share it. I've had one instance of a woman seeing a photo I'd posted and expressing that she didn't like the idea of it. I immediately offered to take it down unconditionally. Radio silence. The next day she shared the photo on her social media without attribution. Sometimes the world has a great sense of humor.

[@loganfifty]

I visited my grandfather’s grave at Arlington and got some good pics there. I saw an elderly Asian woman visiting a grave and decided to grab a few discrete pics of her in the moment. They turned out to be stunning shots, but I’ve never shared them as I didn’t want to intrude on her moment and felt it was simply too personal to share without consent. I did not delete them, however. I felt no compelling reason to do that.

[@cil7ea]

Tony: "I have no sense of smell" - Covid confirmed!

[@alphaxfang]

or a humanoid robot confirmed...

[@loganfifty]

@@alphaxfang that’s Tony, not Zuckerberg

[@philindeblanc]

@@loganfifty this guy is dangerous...seriously..Promotes NASA and their black-op military funding of 20billion a year, then promotes a movement highly questionable of Marxist leaders Soros connected, and feeds into pseudo-science agenda topics and now supports editing the amendment rights. This guy is a danger to America.

[@jeffreynolds922]

When you are in public you open yourself up to public view. Anything that can be viewed in public is fare game. If you don't want to be seen then stay home.

[@jerryeisner1]

Tony and Chelsea, I'm really happy that you are talking about such an important subject. I think you need to come back with a 2021 part II/followup! And if you do a Part II, I wish you would show the actual laws you are referring to here in Part 1. Whatt if you do take photos of someone in a public space I was told that you really cannot sell those pictures without the person's permission. And if you do sell or publish a person's picture who is identifiable then you really do break the law. So we need you both to research these laws strictly and not refer to what you read in an article or what you think the laws are. Thanks so much for bringing up this topic. je

[@AstroLaVista]

What timing, I had a run in with the bad side of street photography last week. I guy rolled into my xray room in electric wheel chair and a Leica around his neck, so whilst I was setting up to xray his leg I was asking about the camera etc and he said he was into street photography. We carried on talking whilst my young female colleague started helping out. When I walked behind the screen to set an exposure I could hear him clicking away shooting from the hip as she was bent forward towards him in her V neck scrubs, so I immediately went back round to politely tell him to pack it in. I guess he knew it was wrong because he denied it, but I 100% saw and heard him doing it. To be fair we have a no camera policy in xray, but I wrongly waved that because he had MS and was in a chair, so it felt a bit wrong to make a big deal about it. Lesson learnt.

[@timothylatour4977]

Is your xray room public space? I wouldn't think so.

[@AstroLaVista]

@@timothylatour4977 No, it's a controlled area under the ironizing radiation medical exposure act.

[@AllenTweed]

Oh good grief! Tony's argument is totally illogical. Why in the world would anyone want to change the first amendment??? Have to go with Chelsea on this one...

[@nordic5490]

Who cares about the law mate. Why would you photograph people without their consent ? Where is your decency mate. Your argument for not photographing persons under 18 is that they are too young to give consent. But, for an 18 year old, you haven't even given them the oppertunity to give their consent or other wise. Your position of 'respect 18 yr olds' is hypocritical and ridiculous.

[@cooloox]

@@nordic5490 OMG grow up! Capturing the world around you with a camera is what we all like to do. The world has people in it. If you're so scared to be photographed then don't go out in public as you're going to be SEEN anyway. If people see you or see your photo, what's the difference? You must be woke or some such nonsense. It is people like you causing our rights to be ever shrinking. We won't have any freedom at all one day and it's thanks to people like you.

[@FrankTaeger2021]

Because Invasion of privacy is not freedom of speech? This Invasion in fact is infringing on the Personal rights and restriktive your movements.

[@Olivyay]

Because the first amendment was written to protect people afraid to express themselves for fear of retribution from people holding power, not to protect creeps harassing individuals and taking upskirt photos. Stop blindly idolizing 200 year old texts that catered only to the worries of the time they were written.

[@AllenTweed]

All states have privacy laws that protect us from those who would violate our privacy. The first amendment protects us from government tyranny. It is my opinion that Tony is trying to stir up a controversial subject that generates traffic for this channel. He has succeeded!

[@blokkadeleider]

No Tony, you can take pictures in public in Germany. If you're on a square somewhere and there are people on it too but you want to take a picture of that square, to picture the scene, this is perfectly OK . However what is not allowed is to take pictures of people as the subject of the photo without their permission and publish that. This is where their privacy law kicks in.

[@andreasbuder4417]

That’s not true. Through DSGVO it doesn’t matter, if someone is the subject or not. All it matters, if someone is recognizable. And then it is data processing of personal data and the DSGVO is in effect. At this point, you have to comprehensible explain the articles of the DSGVO and ask for permission, before you take the picture.

[@juliandurchholz]

@@andreasbuder4417 That‘s inaccurate, please read up on how GDPR applies to photography before spreading such misinformation.

[@blokkadeleider]

@@andreasbuder4417 not quite. That is not how Tony presented it or as I understood it. I for instance took a picture of the Frauenkirche in Dresden in 2019. It has well over 100 people in that picture. Mind you, they are far away and hardly recognizable. By your reasoning I would have to ask every one of them for permission. I'd really recommend checking out Kanzlei WBS's channel. There are some really good items on the subject there for Germany specifically where this is explained in depth. And by the way. If someone is already recognizable in a picture, one probably did push a camera in front of their face.

[@TheBreed010]

what Tony argues for is the law in many European nations, as you have pointed out. But America is incapable of looking beyond her own borders(probably the wall is too damn high) and just copying good legislation from other countries.

[@taaaaaaaazzzzzz]

No, there have even been court cases. If it can be conceived as art, is is probably going to be fine. And in these court cases it was conceived as art and it was fine. Just don't be a creep and respect other people properly and you should be fine.

[@123precision8]

Anytime you step out of your home, you are in public. You should have a reasonable expectation that you may be photographed/on film.

[@loganfifty]

To a degree, yes. But don’t be too broad with that proclamation. Does it not apply when you are at work? Perhaps not as an employee but what if it’s your own business? What if you are at your friend’s home? Does your friend have an expectation of privacy there but not you? It’s important to clarify private property vs public places, not just private residences vs everywhere else

[@Dan1955Rl]

@@loganfifty If you're at work or at a friends home, they are both private property. He is talking about public property, like in the street or on the sidewalk. Private also means at a grocery store etc. Where a city park for instance is a public space.

[@cirmothe9]

Tony's defense for when he goes out for street photography is that he shoots at f/1.0 so you can't even see if people are in the picture.

[@rudyrodriguezjr.]

I love street photography photos-but it is a gray area. Example: I'm not a fan of homeless people shots; It should not be used to exploit people....but it is an art form.

[@waynejanik9668]

Also you have the right to view this art form or not. If people wouldn't view it then people wouldn't take the pictures

[@slimphotog]

Photos of homeless people could inspire someone to do something about homelessness.

[@chrisdavid735]

@@slimphotog Dorothea Lange

[@MrKroesamaja]

The big advantage is that you are allowed to post, share images of bad people and that can save and has saved lives. In Europe you are not allowed to do that in many countries.

[@radishfever]

Chelsea nailed it at 8:00 in the video. I vote to not prohibit street photography.

[@d_dave7200]

It should be super easy to pass a law making upskirts illegal. It should be super easy to pass a more restrictive law around harassment. It should be super easy to pass a law preventing monentary gain from photos without permission. It should be possible, if more complicated, to pass a law preventing non-consensual posting of photos online. None of those things would require a broad change in street photography laws making it totally illegal without permission. If any of these things are a first amendment issue, then change the first amendment to deal with those. But honestly, the truth is they're not a first amendment issue. Our scholarship around the first amendment is super paternalistic and illogical, and it holds the first amendment to say a lot more than it actually does. Arguing about a "reasonable expectation of privacy" regarding upskirts is not a first amendment issue. Arguing about what constitutes harassment isn't a first amendment issue. It's a "judges being assholes" issue.

[@StarshipGhost]

What about Paranormal photography? Do ghosts have rights? More news at 8:00!

[@jries77]

GLM!

[@JanneRanta]

Tonys whole argument falls apart in the first point. There is no such thing as privacy in public.

[@Zuzzanna]

Here it depends, you cannot take portraits or other closeups

[@JanThomasPettersen]

Agreed! Public is not private. Its in the first word. Public.

[@Alysuis]

What about Chelsea's point that if a person is wearing a dress they clearly don't consent to people seeing their underwear?

[@JanneRanta]

@@Alysuis There are laws against peeping, harassment, stalking, voyerism etc. Doesn't make any difference if there is a camera involved. You would be just as much in trouble if you used a mirror to peek under skirts.

[@Alysuis]

@@JanneRanta Did you watch the video? They showed multiple court rulings that defended taking upskirt photos. Thus making it legal. That is the whole point of the discussion.

[@jeffadrian7271]

Tony, Tony, Tony. First of all, if you so much as go anywhere in public: to the shopping center, to the library, dropping off your kids at school, refueling your car, etc., you can be sure you're being photographed many times each day without anyone asking your permission! On the subject of the art of street photography, we photograph people, perhaps the most interesting and diverse subject group known to man. The variations are endless and the possibilities are limitless. Capturing people in the context of their surroundings, the essence of street photography, tells the story of that moment in time. In my case, this is accomplished without my subjects being aware of my presence, though I may be plainly visible to them (not hiding in the bushes). I do so always with respect for my subject's humanity. I do not make images of people that would bring them ridicule. The goal here is to tell a story or to evoke an emotion, and sometimes if I'm fortunate, do both in one image. A variation of this approach, street portraiture, has me photographing visually interesting strangers with their full awareness of my presence. Thus, their permission is implied. The goal here is to capture elements of their interesting character. When children are involved, I always get at least a nod of approval from the parent if the child is identifiable.

[@tiberiu_nicolae]

Improving police accountability in the us relies on street photography to be legal otherwise youll see more police abuse

[@loganfifty]

That would probably be categorized as a newsworthy event, rather than simply street photography

[@theotherandrew5540]

This sure is a difficult one. One of my favourite photos from my own collection was taken 50 years ago, of a child, probably on her way home from school, just splashing one foot into a puddle. It just captured than innocent moment of childhood delight. There’s no way that could be reproduced with parental permission. On another occasion I was photographing a cathedral from very close to the ground, when a little boy just came and looked into my lens. Similarly no parental permission could have captured that look of wonder in the child’s eyes.

[@garryw280]

I wrote a long argument against this, but deleted it all. The simple fact is that you can't keep taking our rights with photography away. People are made to feel awkward as it is. Yes protect from those perverts, but you can't change the world because of the minority. This is part of what's already ruined society. You are point blank wrong Tony! Only a few of your points are relative out of a great number of opposite points of view. I liked Chelsea's positive way of thinking. Well done Chelsea.

[@MegaRider2012]

I really appreciated your discussion, you both made very good points. Tony mentioned Germany a couple of times. Well, from a legal point street photography is more or less dead over here in Berlin. Of course you can take pictures of crowded streets but as soon as there are recognizable faces you have to ask for permission which means the moment you wanted to capture is gone. No matter if you ask for consent before or after the picture people would say "well, I don´t want to be photographed by a stranger". Apart from that, a verbal consent is not enough from a legal point of view. You must be able to proof afterwards that you´ve got a permission which means you have to have a written consent with the subject´s full name, address and signature, a classic model release. That´s the moment when people would say "no". Why would they give their personal data to a stranger? It just doesn´t work. All the spontaneity that makes street photography interesting is gone.

[@budderytoastdrawing]

Good luck banning it with smart phones

[@EverythingIsPhotogenic]

Happy Thanksgiving Chelsea and Tony! Interesting conversation. I can definitely appreciate the epistemology behind both positions. I think everyone wants a middle ground but finding the right balance is definitely close to impossible. By the way, Chelsea, you're a very strong debater. Very skillful approach even if people don't agree with your position, they would agree you presented your position well. You conceded where appropriate and challenged the reasons behind Tony's position and asked what level of evidence would change his mind. It takes people years to learn to do that well 👏👏👏

[@locke_2756]

In the era of COVID, walking up to someone to talk about permission is a much bigger issue than privacy of the photo

[@mcmoose64]

I can not understand how legal up-skirting and "reasonable expectation of privacy" can exist in the same universe..

[@ytr8989]

You can get in trouble for taking a selfie of yourself standing in front of the Eiffel Tower at night.

[@howardchud9097]

That’s a security issue. Same in the US.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

No, it's a copyright problem

[@gewglesux]

I tried that.. was never challenged by anybody but i did get looks from them.

[@venom5809]

Yep, girl I follow online got in trouble for doing that, crazy.

[@dzllz]

That’s crazy, why? Because people in the background?

[@lozzzafilms]

Crikey, slow news day in the US? How could you take a picture of, let’s say, the Washington monument without people in it. How would a law against street photography deal with that ?

[@mbr5742]

The same way the german law does this since the days of dry plate photography If your picture picks out individuals - not legal If removal of the person(s) would not negatively affect the picture / change the "message" - legal Shooting Washington Monument or Cologne Cathedral West Entry is not considered street but landscape/architecture. Zooming in on the beggar sitting inside the entry - THAT is illegal because you target a person and that needs consent.

[@throughmichaelslensphotogr2000]

I had just moved to the town I live in now. A woman was photographing my woman and I from a distance. I noticed but didn’t say anything. The lady started walking up to us and I told my lady that someone was taking photos . She came up and asked if she could use them in the paper . Being a photographer I have a different outlook on this. She got a real candid then asked . Being a photographer is hard in this world anymore.

[@nathanielcashjr.732]

I do street photography for an annual motorcycle rally. I started posting my photos on the biker's FaceBook page and Instagram. I became known by nearly 50,000 bikers for my photography. Pre-covid I shot for 9 years. I have had 3 people ask me to take their photo off of the group and 5 who have seen me with the camera and ask not to be photographed. Now people recognize me and will ask me to take their photo at the event, or if they see a random photo posted, it's considered making my cut. I now get invited to many private parties. I tend to lean towards Chelsea's viewpoint.

[@giorgiobilli855]

For the little it's worth, I totally agree with Mrs. Northrup

[@my_obscure_epoch9346]

"The diminishing value" and "diminishing honesty in street photography." Interesting perspective, I think a lot more time in this video should have been devoted to this statement alone.

[@ikemreacts]

What is Tony doing? He is gone mad. Chelsea should leave him.

[@philindeblanc]

@@ikemreacts He is missing his SS stripes and polished boots.

[@SteveMellorPhotography]

They couldn’t have devoted more time to it, the argument is spurious at best.

[@seanmole8134]

Unintended consequences of legislation here is that the ability to film an interaction with law enforcement could be curtailed, as the supporting laws allowing this currently is the fact that there is not a "reasonable expectation of privacy" on the part of a law enforcement officer performing their public duties. Be careful, that your desire to protect your feelings upend your ability to protect your physical well-being, or your ability to legally represent the truth of an interaction. This is a complicated issue and is not black and white (nor sepia).

[@ikilen]

This is an interesting topic, because these pictures are likely to be shared in a digital world with facial recognition and impressive search technology. Do we have the right to any amount of privacy in public? If so, then I think no pictures of ppl with identifiable features should be shared anywhere online without explicit consent for a specific use, no matter where they are in the picture. This is because you don’t know what anyone would consider bad/embarrassing and it could even change after the picture is taken and you got consent the first time. I’ll give examples that are not about up-skirt or bad-hair-days: A former homeless person/drug addict might want to forget that past to move on with their lives. A person could be cheating on their partner (or it could be construed) and not want it documented that they are with someone. A teacher might not want pictures of them partying/drunk or dressed in a way that could get them fired or denied promotions. Someone walking out of a building with a therapists office might simply consider this connection embarrassing... context is important and, some day, maybe your future employer/anyone can goggle a specific person and see their entire life collected from various pictures on Facebook, Instagram, or other sources..

[@perilthecat]

Oooooooh the comments on this one are going to be a fracking disaster. Duck and cover 🦆 & 🪖

[@alex_nita]

It was a fun ride with your videos. Good luck, Chelsea. I hope Tony won't drag you into his "old boomer" mood.

[@gwvaio]

lol

[@SAFbikes]

This isn’t Old Boomer... this is the young hipster boomer who tattoos the word “CONSENT” on his back to show how much he cares.

[@R0swell5104]

I think most people would agree that you cannot expect privacy in a public place and would expect the possibility of their photo being taken if only as part of a group i.e. tourist snapshots. However people do expect that their personal intimate privacy should be honoured which would mean that upskirts and down blouse shots would be classified as assault. Similarly being furtive by say hiding in bushes with a telephoto would also be considered an infringement on the basis that by the very act of hiding and photographing would make a reasonable person uncomfortable. The same could be said about "street photographer" that harass their subject to get a reaction. That should be covered by antisocial behaviour or disturbing the peace. It certainly is a minefield but maybe a few general laws could be introduced and then tested in court.

[@Appleptic]

I'm totally understanding Tony. In Germany, where I live, it is very well allowed to take pictures of people in public spaces, but it is strictly forbidden to publish them. This includes all social media, as well as "bigger audiences" like on a stage or in front of a classroom etc. If someone would share a photo of myself it's the easiest thing to sue the photographer. It's simply not allowed. Human faces are treated like stock photos or art. You need a consent for publication, which you can only get from the owner of the face. From my perspective that is a very reasonable intermediate way. If a picture of mine lives on a computer I'm totally fine with it. But I don't want to see my face trending on social media. But that's just my two cents.

[@edwardneuman6061]

When your on the street you have no reasonable expectation of privacy-period.

[@MarkZilbermanPhotography]

I've just started listening to Tony and he's already said something fallacious. In Germany, as well as the rest of the EU, it is NOT illegal to photograph ANYONE, in public. Full stop. The issue is the usage. And, the illegality of the usage is based on intention. And that can only becided before a judge. Additionally, "skirting" is illegal in NYC. And finally, if his wishes for banning cameras from taking pictures of people because of their invasion of privacy were fulfilled, every single CCTV would be illegal. And, the ability to solve crimes would be negatively impacted.

[@perilthecat]

(I don’t think you need to get so worked up, this was just staged for content.)

[@FrankTaeger2021]

@@perilthecat you have To. Because Tony has a Point, nur the was he represents it is so wrong. There is black and Write and this CAN be solved . There is middle ground between privacy and Freedom. But they dont Show it here.

[@SilverHalides]

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that there are countries in the EU where the legislation gives people an exclusive right to images of themselves. That right also applies in public places. In practice, this means that you cannot take a picture of a person who can be identified in the photograph without prior consent. I don't know how formal that consent needs to be. Publicly known people ("celebrities"), such as a politician at a public gathering, may be photographed without giving their consent, as far as I know. I assume that there are also exceptions linked to the authorities' use of CCTV. I believe that this kind of legislation exists in France and Belgium and possibly also Spain and Italy.

[@perilthecat]

@@FrankTaeger2021 let’s agree to disagree. This is a KZbin video/podcast opinion piece (which is obviously staged in a fairly clickbaity way), made for entertainment. This issue isn’t going to get solved here on KZbin, and neither T nor C are experts, nor elected reps arguing over a bill in the US senate. It’s ‘Murica!, kids aren’t safe from mass murder in schools, I don’t see society jumping off the couch to change the first amendment.

[@MarkZilbermanPhotography]

@@SilverHalides No. There are no restrictions on taking a picture of someone in public in the EU. The issue is its usage. And, enforcement requires going to court where a judge will determine what the intent is. It all sounds pretty unenforceable.

[@nickgreene2533]

Hi Tony and Chelsea. Long time fan. I am also a photographer (hobbyist) as well as an attorney. In the past, I’ve also taught at the university of Miami. My colleague there is an expert on privacy law and I have focused a lot on search and seizure (expectation of privacy) and harassment laws. I wonder if you all would ever be interested in making a part 2 to this video with a little more in-depth discussion on the legal aspects with a guest speaker or two.

[@bohnstube]

If one has managed to survive and live to the ripe old age of "adulthood", and yet they're still annoyed to the point of either 1) trying to take others rights away, 2) committing actual violent retaliatory acts, or 3) hiring a lawyer to seek "compensation" or "redress" for any "emotional trauma" that's "suffered" by simply being noticed in the public space, or because one didn't like the responses they got to a "social" media opinion that they posted, some bits of advice for them: the first is to *GROW UP*. It's time to realize that if one thinks that the world "owes them" total immunity from ever being "annoyed", maybe the first person they should be seeking help from shouldn't be a lawyer or a cop, maybe it should be from a mental health professional for some counseling, and perhaps for the proverbial "checkup, from the neck up...".

[@VaughnFelixMusic]

Hey you on the rooftop, and you walking your dog, and you washing your car, and you ma’am opening the door to the bank, do I have to your consent? Ok stand still..... ok hold on do that again... oh wait, move over to the left a foot sir.... yeah no sorry Tony

[@timothylatour4977]

No way. You are right -- they're all fair game.

[@Feverstockphoto]

Covid 19 & lockdown has messed with my time clock but surely it's not April the 1st, is it!? 😂

[@Schrsmnymkr]

I see 👀 what you did there lol 😆

[@MichaelVogtOK]

When you start talking about making laws, it's worthwhile to think about how such laws might be enforced, and who might suffer from possibly problematic enforcement. It's easy to imagine an anti-street-photography law being used against protestors and other activists.

[@hanumanguy]

Of course, take away the rights of the general public to photograph, you eliminate citizen journalism and all you have left is an official media subservient to the powers that be and the surveillance state.

[@donconrard533]

Think of all the great photos by Bruce Davidson, Mary Ellen Mark, Elliott Erwitt and Heni Cartier Bresson we would not have if the law regarding street photography was changed the way Tony is suggesting. And how would you distinguish between street photographers and photojournalists working for news organizations? When I worked as a news photographer I frequently took photos of people who didn't want to have their picture taken.

[@timothykieper]

"Drop the camera and put up your hands. Don't make me Tase you, Bro" "

[@mrangles3402]

Why is the audio so low, I don't have my earphone with me so I can't watch this

[@timothylatour4977]

I noticed the same thing.

[@georgkoe]

Chelsea, your argument about feeling connected to humanity through street photography was really moving! Thank you for that!

[@absolutebbq]

I love how you two debate/negotiate. This could be the key to a happy marriage ... 😊🙏🏼

[@DPGrupa]

You're asking a bunch of photographers if there should be limitations on them? I wonder what they will say.

[@chrisdavid735]

Tony is an ass!

[@McRuessel]

It is not illegal in Germany taking pictures on the streets. I am with Chelsea on this also! ^_^

[@jdrm9572]

It is technically, but the exceptions on that law allow people to be in a photo as 'accessories', in landscapes/alley ways, public events and demonstrations. But even then regardless of it being illegal theres only been a few extreme cases that made it to court, it is also a regulation that was introduced in 1907 so yeah, basically it's legal but illegal xD

[@McRuessel]

@@jdrm9572 You're right, I just wasn't able to put it into some wise words... ^^

[@FrankTaeger2021]

I think in is Important to unterstand the Nuance in german Kunsturhebergesetz, the GDPR and of Courage the issue of „Right to Images of yourself“ weich are very differentiated. Understanding this would make Tonys Point More useful and people would See there is More than black and white.

[@SilverHalides]

@@FrankTaeger2021 By speaking to friends and colleagues, I have got the impression that legislation varies hugely from one country to another. I suppose the "Right to images of yourself" that you mention works a lot like the "droit à l'image" principle in France, but I would love to know more about how such rules actually work for people who want to do street photography.

[@sioux1066]

love listening to you two.....so glad I found your channel!

[@guyyowell8547]

Although I don’t always agree with your views and reviews (especially about Nikon’s future) I still think it’s very important to get along and allow others to give their opinions, so I wanted to wish you and Chelsea and your lovely daughter a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving! Please stay safe!

[@davehyper7835]

Christmas must be coming, the Northrup's have cracked the booze out!

[@stevegarland3387]

Would changing laws on photographing people in public affect stay when a police officer is using excessive force ani it's caught on camera ?

[@alongeleonard770]

I agree with respecting boundaries. I shoot here in downtown Chicago a lot and I always ask/smile or nod before taking their picture. Great topic btw!!

[@PalleSchultz]

Street-photography is and have always been a testament of - and a document of the times we live in. Without it, we will only have acces to a politically filtered truth. You can easily make a case against paparazzo, which is basically stalking, and that can be dealt with using already existing laws.

[@stefanosnapshots463]

How many pints did Tony have before coming up with the idea and sipping a pint whilst recording the video? (It looks like a glass of beer).

[@user-wi7vu5hv8g]

An alcoholic can't take street photos. But he will be the subject of other photographers 😂

[@samuelfranklin9179]

I'm on Chelsea's side

[@Dan1955Rl]

I am also, to a point! I don't like the part where she said you shouldn't use a telephoto lens to take photos of people. In my experience, taking "candid" photos is what "street photography" is all about. Therefore, if someone sees someone taking their picture, they don't act naturally, giving the photo an unnatural "posed" look. To get that natural look, you have to catch them while they are unaware, which a telephoto lens can help with. If after you capture the photo, you want to ask permission, then fine.

[@Glen.Danielsen]

Tony & Chelsea: banning might negate Sony’s latest innovative AF feature for street photography: _AND,_ _Auto Nipple Detect._ 😆 But seriously, one creator made it a practice to politely ask the passerby persons for permission to snap them. That seemed to work well. Also, Chelsea’s ideas make good sense to me. Nice discussion! Great video, you two! 💛🙂

[@tonybaker55]

It is important from an historical point of view that street photography, so that in 100 years our descendants can look back and see how we lived. Pictures of people who do not want their photos taken, I agree, they should not be published. If I do some street photography for the historical aspect, I will always make people aware of what I am doing and not hide somewhere to take photos.