Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Public

I think his stance seems entirely reasonable. I have no desire to take photos that would embarrass or cause distress to either that person or to others. I understand that there may be times that those photos have a value - but I have no wish to take them or have them published. Social Media is the largest downfall of the internet.
 
Tulipone said:
I think his stance seems entirely reasonable. I have no desire to take photos that would embarrass or cause distress to either that person or to others. I understand that there may be times that those photos have a value - but I have no wish to take them or have them published. Social Media is the largest downfall of the internet.
Click to expand...
I think the important thing, is that it isn't "his" stance, rather, he is explaining a legal judgement(s)..
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
There is also the question of public interest.
If you photographed a celebrity slapping his wife in public
or some one being shot by a terrorist.
The expectation of privacy in a public place vanishes.

it is all a matter of circumstances.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
There is also the question of public interest.
If you photographed a celebrity slapping his wife in public
or some one being shot by a terrorist.
The expectation of privacy in a public place vanishes.

it is all a matter of circumstances.
Click to expand...
What about the rights of the victims?
 
An entirely reasonable discourse that should not need the law to intervene.

Sombody sussed this out long ago and it should apply to all our street photography: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
 
myotis said:
I think the important thing, is that it isn't "his" stance, rather, he is explaining a legal judgement(s)..
Click to expand...
It was obvious (to me) what the court case he was going to quote would be.

And IMHO he dismisses a significant factor of that judgement ( re. the surname; important enough to be used as a reason in the judgement, but brushed away as it doesn’t fit his argument)*.

I’m not BTW defending the principle that we should be free to shoot and publish photos of the emergency services working ‘just for likes on social media’ or indeed that any of us should ever shoot photos with ‘intimate details’ for likes, but those issues were not tested in that case.

And regarding ‘intimate’ images? If they were even close to illegal then there’d be no Daily Mail ‘wall of shame’ and the world would be a better place. Alas: that’s not the case.

The crux of the Weller judgement was that the children were named alongside the photos which breached their right to a family life. No such protection for the adults who being ‘famous’ were considered fair game to have their lives splashed all over the papers. Again - not defending that position, but those are the facts.

And the crux of both the video and his tweets was that there’s no ‘unconditional’ right to take images in a public place - which is correct (as evidenced by the court case) but he doesn’t really give anything other than a personal view as to legally why the specific scenario in the tweet would be deemed against the law. Just that he thinks it should be. In a very convincing way.
 
Last edited:
Which reminds me of another personal dilemma. Back in the day I loved the work of that crop of documentary photographers of the late seventies and eighties that perhaps Martin Parr best represents. Basically and nearly always, the subject matter was the the poor and the working classes (for want of a better word).

I came across this exhibition and the last picture in this link got me thinking. The exhibition blurb talks about a satirical look at Scotland. But it took me back to his breakthrough work on Merseyside, "The Last Resort". Looking with older eyes, I cannot help feeling that we have an articulate middle class guy looking down his nose at the antics and lack of "class" of the poorest and least articulate part of our society. As much as I hate the cant and puritanism of what is fashionably called "woke", I really think the last picture in my link is a good old case of "fat shaming" . How much do Magnum charge for a copy of this print? Is the exhibition a nice bit of voyeurism for the culturally educated who are the main customers of these exhibitions?

Maybe I am wrong.
 
NCV said:
Which reminds me of another personal dilemma. Back in the day I loved the work of that crop of documentary photographers of the late seventies and eighties that perhaps Martin Parr best represents. Basically and nearly always, the subject matter was the the poor and the working classes (for want of a better word).

I came across this exhibition and the last picture in this link got me thinking. The exhibition blurb talks about a satirical look at Scotland. But it took me back to his breakthrough work on Merseyside, "The Last Resort". Looking with older eyes, I cannot help feeling that we have an articulate middle class guy looking down his nose at the antics and lack of "class" of the poorest and least articulate part of our society. As much as I hate the cant and puritanism of what is fashionably called "woke", I really think the last picture in my link is a good old case of "fat shaming" . How much do Magnum charge for a copy of this print? Is the exhibition a nice bit of voyeurism for the culturally educated who are the main customers of these exhibitions?

Maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Martin Parr has always been a figure worthy of discussion.

My view? His images show a depth of understanding of the human condition. It’s nigh on impossible to create those images without a love of and understanding of your subject*. So I don’t see them as exploitative (whilst they look more so than his b&w contemporaries).

* to photograph any subject well requires the same thing, great landscape photographers aren’t urbanites who hate the smelly countryside, wildlife photographers don’t despise nature etc.
 
NCV said:
Which reminds me of another personal dilemma. Back in the day I loved the work of that crop of documentary photographers of the late seventies and eighties that perhaps Martin Parr best represents. Basically and nearly always, the subject matter was the the poor and the working classes (for want of a better word).

I came across this exhibition and the last picture in this link got me thinking. The exhibition blurb talks about a satirical look at Scotland. But it took me back to his breakthrough work on Merseyside, "The Last Resort". Looking with older eyes, I cannot help feeling that we have an articulate middle class guy looking down his nose at the antics and lack of "class" of the poorest and least articulate part of our society. As much as I hate the cant and puritanism of what is fashionably called "woke", I really think the last picture in my link is a good old case of "fat shaming" . How much do Magnum charge for a copy of this print? Is the exhibition a nice bit of voyeurism for the culturally educated who are the main customers of these exhibitions?

Maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...
As @Phil V says, Parr is always good for discussion!

Did New Brighton look like Parr's photos? Almost certainly - in part if not in whole. I was brought up in Southport, another northern seaside town not too far away, and it looked pretty much the same during holiday season. As for 'fat shaming' and that sort of criticism of photos, it leads to a kind of historical censorship. If things exist in society they need to be recorded or we end up with a sanitised view of it.

I have a slideshow of some of my photos of Southport in the late 70s/early 80s on Youtube and one commenter didn't like the way I'd picked out the run-down bits. Others remembered it the way it was. (It ain't improved much!) Just because you take photographs of the less salubrious aspects of society doesn't mean you don't have an affection for them.

It's interesting to compare Parr's photos of New Brighton with those of Tom Wood, who isn't middle-class English. They're different in style, and his approach was different, but the subjects are similar and could be subject to the criticism of exploitation or ridicule too. The big difference is that Wood spent time in Merseyside and got to be known and accepted by the people there. Parr moved away after he'd published The Last Resort. I think that makes a difference, ut maybe not to how teh photographs are percieved by someone without the knowledge of the two approaches.
 
L320Rio said:
What about the rights of the victims?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting news stories should not be covered.?

As to street photography in general , taking the shots is not the problem . It is the inappropriately publishing of them.

Most high streets and shopping centres are constantly covered by video cameras anyway. As are many shops and Venues.

I am not the least bothered who takes pictures of me in public.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Parr, I cannot decide about his work. I have one of his books. His Photo Book history in 3 parts is a great resource.

I think I prefer Tom Wood in a way, his affection for the people he shot shines through a bit better in my opinion. Though artistically Parr is probably the better photographer.

As for censorship well I shot street stuff in London's markets in my youth, so I guess I am guilty too, but maybe with experience we should remember "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
 
NCV said:
As for censorship well I shot street stuff in London's markets in my youth, so I guess I am guilty too, but maybe with experience we should remember "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Click to expand...
Or shoot first, ask questions later - then don't show your photos for thirty years! :D

Parr admits to having an agenda which sort of accounts for the 'Parresque' pictures. Some of his stuff is more celebratory than critical or potentially mocking - e.g. Rhubarb Triangle (not great but interesting) and Black Country Stories (which I like a lot).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top