Spying on the neighbours

To be honest mate? I am not sure it is a good idea to take a telephoto shot of your street neighbours and then post the results (without their permission I assume?) for all and sundry to see. If my neighbour did that to me, I would be very unhappy and he/she would know exactly how unhappy I would be.

 

I tend to agree (plus the car reg)

 

Think of it this way mate. Would you cross the road, knock on the door and tell them you took their picture and put it up on the internet? No, I don't think so. Why don't you just delete the post/pictures entirely.

I am trying to be kind and impart some sage advice. Your original post is wrong for so many reasons.

 

Strange thread; I'm not sure what to make of it. Especially since there's a long-running "The Real Street Thread" which seems to violate the same standards of privacy at the very top of the Recent Discussions list.

I'm not passing judgement at all, just thinking out loud about the ethics of taking pictures of people without their consent.

 

I'm a little puzzled at this thread. What is the difference between you posting a picture of a neighbour in the street without their permission, and posting a picture of a stranger on the street without their permission? I wouldn't do it myself (the neighbour I mean)... but that's because I wouldn't like my neighbour knocking on my door complaining about my posting their picture on the net without their permission. A stranger on the street isn't likely to do that because they wouldn't know who the photographer was. Doesn't make it right, when you think about it, to post either but strangers do seem to be fair game in street photography. Is that right?

 

Hi, I think the issue is the boundary between public and private. I would not expect a right to privacy in the public street. I am on show to all and sundry, so whether I am caught for a fleeting second in the retina of a strangers eye, or for ever as part of a portfolio....it makes no difference to me. However, I do expect privacy in my own home boundaries. The guy was probabaly unwise to use the term "spying on my neighbours" as his heading for the post, but even if he hadn't there is something faintly unsavoury about using a long lens through a window to pot shot your neighbours in the privacy of their own home/garden etc

 

In the photos, the neighbour was in his own front garden, as was the delivery driver. For me, that is a boundary beyond which (out of a sense of politeness and instinct that it was wrong) I will not breach.

 

It does get me thinking though ... how many times have I taken "street photography" of people at their windows/gardens/doors while on holiday and just thought of it as a holiday snap of a different culture .... where somehow that doesn't seem morally/ethically wrong, but in my own backyard (street) its different. Does give me food for thought as to situations where those ethical boundaries have been broken without me even thinkiing about it at the time.

 

Monday morning ponderance (well it's Monday morning for me anyway).

Let's say for argument's sake that it is cool to photograph someone without their permission on the street, but not in their home. Now looking through flickr recently I find that a relatively common theme of American street photography is the documentation of homelessness. Now from the point of view understanding society's problems this is certainly useful in showing how the system is failing so many people, but my question is; are they being being photographed a) on the the street, or b) in their 'homes'?

I don't see it as right or wrong and I do appreciate being made aware of the issue through photography but based on the discussion so far in this thread I just wonder where people believe the distintion is.

Thanks

 

Spuff


I did see your shots before you took them down - which was the right thing to do... but I am glad you kept the thread open as it does raise issues that should be considered.

Those of you who know me know i do take street photographs.. ie photos of people in public places without their express consent.

However... before posting any pictures I do consider whether in my opinion that a picture

a) has any artistic merit - which i agree is a subjective call
b) captures a unique moment in time - dont think I have managed many of those yet
c) Illustrates effectively and distinctly a particular technical aspect of camera or lens
d) will not obviously offend the subject or portray them in a way that would be deemed to be offensive

sadly spuff your pictures failed to satisfy at least 3 of these criteria

The joy of this forum is people sharing their images and their approaches to photography and their opinions. We all have different standards of what is correct - and this is only mine

Indeed what is 'correct' can be nebulous...and sometimes cultural. I posted a photo recently on the graffiti thread...

someone expressed that it made them uncomfortable... I asked why and they pointed out that the image was actually taken from an image of an infamous UK murderer.

I had not realised this when I took the picture - even though I was aware of the person historiclly... I had just captured and posted an image that i believed to have some artistic/technical merit


K

 

Nic, You bring up a very good point about the homeless. The street is more than likely their home. Unfortunately, their home is in the Public Domain. That's actually the sad part about the situation. A sleeping uncaring public. Not all but many, including those that could make change. All of my homeless images go to an advocacy group. They always did and always will.

On the topic of neighbors.... it's true that if your neighbor is outside and you make an image it's almost the same thing as them being on the street....OR IS IT?

On many Image Quest I have stressed the importance of..."Intent".

If your intent is Spying on the neighbors, then that's what you did...(I'm talking to everybody now)...
If your intent was to make a street type image of the neighbors, then that's what you do.
So, with intent on this subject, The INTENT was spying on the neighbors. It may still be legal but certainly is RUDE at the least.

Intent is everything. There is nothing more important and if you ever get into a hassel with anyone, the Intent of the image is what you will be arguing about.

 

Thanks for your reply, Don. I have heard you say before that you work for an advocacy group and I'm glad that answered the question from your perspective (and hopefully did not take offence by it). It was just a question that formed in my mind based on Ray's definition of public vs private property and I was curious to hear other opinions. I don't think I would feel comfortable doing that style of photography but then I would only be doing it to produce an image, not directly to help the cause of the homeless.

 

this is why I prefer to take pics of things over people (my kids excluded). I've never heard anyone talk about the privacy of a butterfly.

 

There's a difference between the legality of something, and the morality of the same action. To me personally, there's a presumption of privacy for someone inside their home, whether or not you can see them from the outside. I don't take photos of that activity. Out in public, everyone's fair game.