Photography and Privacy

As a street photographer, I am occasionally challenged about taking photographs without permission in public where there is legally no expectation of privacy. Incidents usually involve a civil discussion about personal rights in public. I consider these opportunities to educate rather than callously enforce my legal rights. There are too many other opportunities for photographs than to “plant my flag” over one frame. I will usually delete a frame upon request. I prefer a more peaceful resolution than ending an encounter with animosity. The following is an overview of privacy-related to photography in the United States. It is meant to be informative, not legal information.

What is Street Photography?
Street photography is photographing the human condition: people and the spaces they occupy.

How much privacy does a person have in public?
In the USA, anyone may photograph whatever they want in public places or places where they have permission.  Without any specific statute or ordinance, anything seen in or from a public place may be photographed.  This is a 1st Amendment right. Public places include streets, sidewalks, public parks, and other public spaces.  Members of the public have minimal privacy rights when in public places.  Anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as dressing rooms, bathrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes. 

What can be photographed in public?
In public, the following subjects may be photographed:

  • People and Things

  • Accident, Fire, and Crime scenes

  • Children

  • Celebrities

  • Bridges, infrastructure, residential and commercial buildings, and public utilities, 

  • Modes of transportation and facilities (autos, airports, train, bus, vessel)

  • Criminal Activities and Arrest

  • Law Enforcement Officers

Can photographs be taken on private property?
Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises, but they have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from public areas (streets, sidewalks, etc.).

What are the rights to use an image?
In general, taking pictures of people in public does not require a model release or their consent. A model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses a product, service, or organization creating a commercial intent. Selling a photography adsent of any endorsement is art, and constiutionally protected. Photographer’s have the right to sell their intellectual property. A model release would almost always be required if a photograph is used for advertising.  A model release is unnecessary for publishing a photo as news or for artistic or editorial expression.  See California Civil Code 3344 for specific information related to image use.

Do you have a personal philosophy on taking photographs?
My photographs represent a personal perspective of the world. I intend to always respect people and places while maintaining my legal rights in public. Although not legally required, I will always consider deleting a photograph on request.

A viewer occasionally ask me to explain why or what was my intention for a given frame. My response which is apparently not very satisfing is “It is whatever you want it to be.” Viewing art is as uniquely an experience for the viewer as it is for the creator. Viewers bring their experiences into their perceptions of the art, and what the creator intended is really irrelevant. Good street photography can tell a story, create emotion, and hopefully may cause the viewer to think about the world differently.

Occasionally during a discussion people will accept that a given picture is legal, but they feel the frame is unethical , disrespectful etc., and that law doesn’t “make the photo right.” The law does matter. You cannot have a society governed by individual perceptions of morality or ethics regardless if it is mine or someone else. We have laws in part to create boundaries on behavior. Often when people object to a picture (or any art) they are projecting their own bias onto it. Their objection often says more about their perceptions than the photographer’s work.

Is there ethics in Street Photography?
Ethics depend on the photographer. Some consider there should be limits to what and how photographs are taken in public. For example, prohibiting photographing children, the unhoused, mentally ill, various types of victims (accidents, disasters, etc), or handicapped as unethical or disrespectful.  I believe that photographs are a person's world perspective and should not be limited. However, any photograph is open to subjective criticism of what and how it represents the photographer's vision. Social change can occur for marginalized groups because of powerful (often disturbing) visual media, but only when there is a narrative and context for what is being photographed. Photographs alone of marginalized groups usually become exploitative.

While I will defend that all subjects are potentially photographic, I will not defend some ways photographers act. For example, I despise how famous street photographer Bruce Gliden works. He typically steps directly before a subject on a crowded New York street and fires a flash from around three feet. While legal, his style often creates visible stress and avoidance of his subjects. When questioned about the ethics of his style, he states, “I have no ethics.” Famous street photographer Joel Meyerowitz's view of Gliden is: “He’s a fucking bully. I despise the work, I despise the attitude, he’s an aggressive bully, and all the pictures look alike because he only has one idea – ‘I’m gonna embarrass you, I’m going to humiliate you.’ I’m sorry, but no.”