STREET SHOTS- ARE THEY ETHICAL?

[Bubba136]

Wooooosh! Isn't that what I said?

[Ellen-Jay]

No, I raised an ethical question, I wasn't demanding that anyone change their view, nor was I inviting anyone to change mine. A healthy exchange of views (as I've said before). Ellen-Jay

[Firefox]

I think the TV blimp shot would be different to a street photo. I'm trying to understand the view of a woman who wouldn't like their street photo taken. The only type of logical thing I can come up with is that maybe they would not like the thought of other people viewing them and taking some sexual pleasure from the beauty or the smartness of the image. Is that what Ellen means by "unsavoury". I don't know. She never atcually said what unsavoury meant. Many people will actaully view the photos to see what shoes there are and where they come from. Are they typical of this season's fashions, or indicator of things to come, or things gone by. How does the total outfit look, what the style of the trousers, those are surely 4 1/2 inch heels and Faith/Barratts/Dune only do 3 inch in that style etc etc. True shoe experts look at shoes in the same way they might look at train engines. Some men and women have this collecting or categorising impulse in the same way as they could collect antiques or stamps or football programmes or dried flowers. I only speak from my point of view. Others may have different motives. But whatever the motive, the blimp shot of a sea of faces or section of a crowd does not enable the same activities to take place in the background which is why it may be thought of as different.

[Bubba136]

Quite so, FF. But, I was looking for an extreme example. (I guess I could have come up with some public gathering with less people at it.)

[Heelfan]

Good point Bubba - an extreme case is always a good debating technique to illustrate a particular argument. Also it should be pointed out that you did not call Ellen-Jay "Absurd" (unkind of her to try and twist your innocent words into an insult) - you only called that hypothetical air-blimp situation "Absurd". Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[genebujold]

Thanks for calling me absurd Bubba - very friendly.

Ellen-Jay

Actually, depending upon how you read his post, he was pointing out, with clear discourse, the absurdity of your logic, your definition, or possibly both.

But he was by no means calling you absurd!

Even the best of us fall on our faces once in a while with respect to both logic and the English language. When that happens, we back up and take a second look. If another's post has merit, we say "my bad," and go on. If it's without merit, we regroup and counter their post.

What we (and you) should never do is to take it personal, and for one good reason - that's not the way it was intended.

Most of us here are ladies and gentlemen. Let's respond appropriately to posts, even if they sting a little.

Bubba - sound logic. No worries there.

[Ellen-Jay]

Women are from Venus, Men are frm Mars (which we all know)... FF said "Is that what Ellen means by "unsavoury". I don't know. She never atcually said what unsavoury meant." Sorry you didn't understand the phrase, but in the context of covert photos (you previously ignored my playground analogy) I take unsavoury to mean unpleasant, socially unacceptable (to me). HF said "Good point Bubba - an extreme case is always a good debating technique to illustrate a particular argument." Hence my previous post on the male street-healer scenario, which was dismissed out of hand. GBJ said "Actually, depending upon how you read his post, he was pointing out, with clear discourse, the absurdity of your logic, your definition, or possibly both. But he was by no means calling you absurd!" A fine line GBJ, I don't think I was being oversensitive in taking that personally. If I were to say someones shoes were absurd I'm sure most would take that personally. FF said "True shoe experts look at shoes in the same way they might look at train engines. Some men and women have this collecting or categorising impulse in the same way as they could collect antiques or stamps or football programmes or dried flowers. I only speak from my point of view. Others may have different motives." This is the internet, yes others will have other motives and they are not excluded from viewing this forum and downloading the pics. As for the trainspotter analogy, I think we've hit the buffers here boys!! Ellen-Jay

[PJ]

.....Extending your logic, Ellen-Jay, if you are attending a sporting event and the TV Blimp flys over and takes a "long shot" of the crowd in the stadium, and you happen to be in it, by your definition then, your right to privacy is being violated if they broadcast the shot without your permission. And that is, any way you look at it, absurd.

I recall that whenever I attended an event in the USA that was scheduled to be televised, each admission ticket had small print on the back that dictates that by using this ticket, you give the broadcaster the right to use your image in any manner and at anytime they please.

[Bubba136]

yeah, but there is a difference at being at a Cubs/White Sox game with your neighbor's wife and having a picture of you smooching her with your hand inside her blouse appearing on the score board and a wide angle shot of the entire stadium. That statement is to prevent the team from being sued because your marriage ended in divorce as a result of their broadcasting your image.

[chris100575]

That's pretty specific Bubba, speaking from experience? Chris

[Bubba136]

not really, I could have said Bulls or Blackhaws game, too. However, I do have relatives that live in the Chicago area (way up north near the Wisc. border), and have attended games held in the different venues.

[Stormie]

Legality aside, I find it rather unethical. If a shot of a person in heels was taken, but the only part of it published was the heels, then that's rather more acceptable but a lot of the pictures I've seen on here have been full body shots and I dislike that. If someone wants a picture of themselves that they they may be identified from published on the Internet they would do it themselves. Unless you want to go asking every woman whose shoes you like whether you can photograph her and publish her photo, I think street shots shold, at the least, be cut down to only show the part of the picture you're supposedly photographing - the shoes.

[RPMindy]

i'm not the expert here. but for me, i've made a point of asking most of the time when i take street shots. it's embarassing, but i figured if they say yes then i won't have to worry about getting sued or anything. i tend to just take the shoes and edit out what will identify the location of the shot. i don't want legal troubles and i don't want my concious botherin me. so yes, i've had my share of dirty looks, but also i've gotten compliments for my shooting perspective and landed a shooting gig once that way. RPM

[zoidberg]

I don't think you could be sued (in the UK anyway) for taking an unauthorised photo of a person's shoes or boots. If you take a picture of their face, or they are clearly intended to be the subject of the photograph then you could fall fowl under copyright laws. I think then the subject of the photograph would own the copyright in the image unless they had signed a waiver, often referred to as a "model release" form. The model release form simply states that the photographer can do what they want with the photo, can benefit commercially from it and that the model (subject in the photo) has no future claim to any revenue the photographer receives from sale of the photo. Zoidberg.

[Shafted]

I think that the best way to sum up any ethical dilemma, is to treat others with the same respect you yourself would like to recieve.

[Firefox]

Ah well, it's interesting to look back on this discussion.

I don't think my views have changed but I've migrated to flickr for this:

Here's some links to slide shows of the kind of shots we're talking about:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/streetheels/discuss/72157601497002236/

I think they are pretty innocuous and reflective of the street scenes of the early 21 Century. Some historical fashion person will enjoy looking back on these records for research as the years go by.

[Wuornos]

Very interesting thread.

It's a Fine Line isn't it?

[jmc]

I've never been fully comfortable with this street-shot idea. While it is interesting to see what people are wearing and the heels are always fascinating, it does smack of "invasion of privacy". It can be argued that privacy concerns go away once a person ventures out into public but I cannot help but thinking "would I be comfortable having this picture of me posted on the 'net for all the world to see?" It's true that if you venture out of your domicile you are in full view of the public -- regardless of your attire. But most of us don't think about having our pictures posted on the Internet for all to see. I think it is safest for street-shot pictures to be as generic as possible -- meaning they should show shoes, feet, legs and possibly bodies only -- definitely not faces in a recognizable form. Further -- face shots should be cropped out of the frame, not simply distorted because modern image processing can reverse most image distortion algorithms. I find back shots to be preferable because they do not show the face. Side shots are okay provided the face is not visible, and full frontal face shots should be avoided. In the end it is more an issue of simple courtesy than anything else. Just ask yourself this question: "If I were this person, would I be comfortable with the whole world seeing me in this outfit?" If the answer is anything but an unqualified "yes", it is probably best not to post it.

[sendra45]

My worry is for one of you guys getting caught by somebody as you take a picture of their wife or GF. In the real world in which we live, folk wont like this and somebody is going to end up with a black eye. You may have guess that I dont think they are ethical. maybe take a picture if it is different, but having just bored myself by looking at some of the pictures, it would seem that some of the members are just hell bent on taking pictures for the sake of it. Somebody sometime is going to get caught by somebody who does not like it.

[kneehighs]

Balance. In my opinion, balance is the answer that is best achieved on a picture-by-picture basis. Balance between the subjects right to privacy, the publics right to know (some street photography is beautiful and very informative), and the camera persons right to freedom of expression. Treat others with your pictures as you would want to be treated. If for example, someone is taking a picture of someone whose religious beliefs prohibit them from having their picture taken (Amish, Druze), then that picture should be censored. If the picture degrades or insults the subject, then in my opinion that picture should be censored. If the subject later asks that their photo not be used, then the picture should be censored (not necessarily deleted, but not published). Likewise, if the street photograph holds some editorial or newsworthy content (right to know) and/or the image is substantively artistic, creative, or historically documentative (right to express), and the author of the image has made an effort to censor her or himself (right to privacy) -- achieving a balance between the subjects right to privacy, right to creative expression, and the publics right to know--then the image should be allowed. That's just how I view it...

[Firefox]

I've not been caught yet. I use a zoom lens and am quite surepticious.

I generally concur with Knee Highs views on the subject. Take photos but exercise some respect and caution especially in the treatment of the photos and their presentation.

At the World Heel Meet 2008, a laptop slideshow of the best 400 shots (from over 4000 on the Flickr High Heels Street Fashions site) will be running. You'll be able to see what a wonderful display they are and a great fashion resource.

On Flickr High Heels Street Fashions group, we only approve quality full length shots with the faces visible, if they show, so you can see the whole fashion ensemble. The feet and leg only shots are not much use for a proper record or ideas on a full ensemble.

[Cinnamon]

Having had pictures and videos taken of my shoes whilst out and about without my permission on a number of occasions, I can safely say that I have little problem with this. My only issue is that I don't get to see the pics myself! The last time, I was waiting at a bus stop at Tottenham Court Road in the early hours after a night out a few months back and a guy was going so far as to crouch down on the pavement with a camcorder recording me walking along... I didn't mind at all, and in hindsight I should of given him my email address. I was dying with curiosity about what the film was like. I had patent courts and black FF stockings on... would love to have a copy myself Have any of you ever taken street shots and been asked for copies of the pics by the "model" before?

[Amanda]

It seems to me very rare that guys ever get shot in the streets by women, except maybe Andy Warhol

[Firefox]

For my part no, because they don't generally realise I am taking pictures. I prefer the candid type of photgraphy, just recording what went on as if the photograper is not there. Posed shots can destroy the natural magic of the composition. Having said that, some of our contributors to High Heel Street Fashions do take pics of themselves in natural surroundings and post to the group. An example would be Juliet Banana. They like to invite comments on their wardrobe and get suggestions for wardrobe combinations as well as a self-review of their current looks.

[Firefox]

Here's another one of my favourite street shots (from flickr again)

[kneehighs]

Here is an example where the altered composition of the shot, at least in my opinion, justifies leaving in the face. In this case, the "art" is in the "optical illusion" created by the camera angle.

I shot this picture totally spontaneously.

I wasn't secretive at all about taking the picture...I stood to the right of her and her friend (not shown) as they approached and snapped away.

The girl was in reality only about 10-12 feet away, but due to the forced perspective achieved by the size of the cars on the right, she appears farther away.

edit: I absolutely can't wait to take pictures of consenting individuals at The World Heel Meet 2008. I hope to create an amalgam of entertaining and documentative pictures unlike ever before.

[Firefox]

Nice photos of the cars and the girl, but It's a shame we don't get a better view of her shoes. I always find this quite a challenging aspect of good street fashion shots, making sure the style of the shoe can be appreciated as well.

[kneehighs]

Well, my point was NOT to promote HIGH HEEL STREET FASHIONS or the style of her shoes--I'll leave that to you and your flickr group, it was to show one reason among many of why I believe in the ethicality of street photography in general...

[roniheels]

But doesn't it come down to this: whether you are wearing high heels or not, do you really want a stranger taking your picture? My first reaction to a woman taking my picture in public would be flattery (how's that for vanity). But if I saw a man taking my picture in public, I would be concerned. There are some strange people running around in the world, not that there aren't some strange women. I know when friends and relatives have taken my picture, it is for memories. When a stranger takes my picture, male or female, I get curious and cautious.

[johnieheel]

If I seen a person taking my picture ,I would raise my pant leg to give him a good shot of my heels and then approach him, or her. There was a man and woman at circuit city see me and my wife get into the car and my wife noticed her telling her husband about my heels. He circled around my car real slow 2 times to get a good look so I left one foot out of the car in clear view so he could get a good shot. I just smiled and waved.