Let’s talk about injustice that is being committed, perpetuated and defended by photographers all over the world — myself included. I’ll show you how I’ve come to realize that the way we do street photography is putting the freedom to do all kinds of photography in peril and I’ve got one idea that may help save it.
Frustration leads to education
I’m now the lead photographer for a large university. Recently, I’ve attended seminars and read books specific to diversity, equity and inclusion in the pictures I make. I’ve learned more about the history and experiences of people of color and how my photography may further stereotypes and the marginalization of students of color.

Each time I leave the seminars, I feel frustrated. It’s like an itch that I can’t get rid of — no, it’s more like restless leg at night (if you have it you know what I mean). I feel frustrated that they just told me not to tokenize people and in the next sentence they tell me I have to represent the same people in my imagery. They haven’t told me how to do both — and I think it’s because we’re all trying to learn to do that well.
But the frustration pushed me toward more education on antiracism.
Inclusion is for everyone
Becoming an antiracist is a paradigm shift for me, and it has me considering everyone around me intentionally. Beyond racism, I also feel torn up about “using” all kinds of people.
We work hard to represent our campus’ diversity (20% nonwhite) honestly and equitably in our pictures. This new awareness not only has me considering how I can represent the diversity of skin colors on my campus but also all the other kinds of people. And there are a lot of different kinds of people.

LGBTQ is naturally on the list, but so are the neurodiverse (those whose brains work differently) and people with disabilities. It’s also got me thinking about everyone else.
We often get attractive people in our pictures, but does that even represent the student body? Is retouching pimples in marketing materials misrepresenting as well? I’m thinking about all this and more and trying to apply it to my work — and I will be for the rest of my life.
Now let’s see how this applies to street photography.

We love street photography
Street photography is the essence of the “decisive moment” and for a century it has sculpted the way we think about making pictures. Walking down the street, getting a feel for the city, looking for light and action, gesture and color, becoming O. Henry’s “Man About Town.”
I love it. I consider myself a generalist street photographer. Interesting light on architecture, blurry trains and busses, and reflections in puddles have all been my subjects, and it thrills me.
But people are the only subjects that really matter. I’ve found interesting compositions and waited for the right person to cross the street into my frame. Seeing someone coming, I’ve used a long lens to frame them in the city’s lines. And I’ve photographed people walking by with a wide lens to get lots of foreshortening and depth.

Personally, the scariest pictures I make on the street are the portraits. I approach people, strike up a conversation and ask them to be in a picture. These are my favorites because we both come away with an enjoyable memory. Or, often, I come away without a picture because they decline my invitation.



There’s a thrill in all the ways of making pictures on the street, and for people stuck in urban settings, it can be pure adventure.
Controversy in street photography
Not everyone sees the joy in street photography, though. There is some hot controversy around it. In the U.S., it is legal to photograph people in public places where there is no expectation of privacy. But that’s not the case in some countries and you can’t legally photograph a person without express permission.

American photographers cling to the right to photograph in public and on the street. Some artists make a living doing so, while others do it recreationally. The few bad apples out there shouldn’t be allowed to ruin it for the rest of us. Many of us discuss the situation and maybe think up ways to preserve the way things are so we can continue to make the art we love.
But preserving the way things are isn’t an option. Things are being changed by non-photographers, and unless we do something different, someone else will take our rights away.
Street photography is assault
Some photographers selfishly find a fix in street photography, like a drug, instead of finding joy in it. And some people who have been photographed have been assaulted to provide the fix.
On October 19, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article by Jean Son describing how she has been victimized by street photographers many times. Go read it. You need to read it.
You need to start to understand how it feels to be on the other side of the camera. Just like I’m trying to understand what it’s like to be someone other than a white man in America.
“Then, last December,” Son wrote, “I was in Chelsea with my mother, talking and laughing. A young man lifted his camera inches from my face.
“‘It’s not illegal,’ he said. ‘It’s art. Get away from me.’ He deleted my photo and walked away.”
I’ve heard that sentence before about legality and art and I’ve said to myself, “It’s not my style, but to each his own.”
However, as I think about art, I’m pretty sure this isn’t. Art can be a means to awaken the world to things that need to change, and it can change the world. As a photo, art can take a moment and multiply it a million times and become powerful. But I can’t see how art can literally take from one person to satisfy another, as the “artist” above seemed to think would happen when photographing Son.

I regret this picture
I’ve made exactly one photograph I regret. I was in Dubai many years ago when I sneakily took a photo of a woman walking by. She heard my camera and stopped me and demanded that I erase it, which I did. I had no defense for my action, and I realized that I had embarrassed my host immeasurably. I also negatively affected that woman’s day and negatively affected her impression of photographers and Americans for the rest of her life.
What’s more, I don’t even know what kind of legal recourse she could have chosen to pursue instead. I’m lucky to have only lost face that day. I’m deeply sorry that I used the art I cherish, and have built my life around, to violate that woman.

Art shouldn’t violate anyone
“Taking upskirt photos is a felony in New York,” Son continued, “But while it’s great that taking photos of specific body parts is considered a crime, any act of photographing someone in a degrading, violative way without her consent in public is wrong and the law should reflect that.
“New York can’t be a safe place for girls and women when any man can point a camera at us and walk away with our faces and our bodies in his files. We should set an example for the country and protect women against all nonconsensual, exploitative photography and videography.”

Maybe taking pictures SHOULD be illegal
As I mature, and as my daughter grows older, I’m beginning to understand what Son is talking about. She is working with legislators on an “image privacy task force that will address photography as a vehicle of gender-based violence in public places.”
The art you and I love so much is being described with words usually reserved for sex offenders. This hurts, but each time I read Son’s article I agree with her more.
The verb here is “take.” When you take pictures in this manner, you rob your subjects. If these people are worth your art, then they are also worth your respect.
I can’t reconcile that taking something from someone else to please yourself is art. Most people call that rape, and that’s the language Son used to describe her experiences.

Frustration continues
The frustrating thing is, I don’t have an answer to make this better. I want to fight legislation to restrict street photography because I see that it’s a precedent that will lead to ever-tighter restrictions and more and more legislation. It will lead to a stranglehold on my art, even though I don’t do it this way.
At the same time, I absolutely believe assaulting people, violating and robbing them should be punished.


Consider your words
As is happening with me and my education on equity and inclusion, I hope this opens your eyes to see that something must be done before someone else does it against us.
Starting with the man in the mirror is a good first step. Why do I make the pictures I make? Am I taking when I do it? Is it using someone else to benefit me? Am I doing something I wouldn’t like done to me (or to my daughter)?
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” –Ansel Adams
Ansel Adams is famed for saying “make” instead of “take.” When I say, “make,” it reminds me that what I’m doing is a result of me and my subject together and it helps me respect and honor them. Changing your language is a step toward changing the world, and this one word may be a good place to start.


One more thing …
Thank you for reading. I’m working on equity and inclusion, so please take it all, including my word choice, in the spirit it is intended and help me to evolve.
I look forward to the discussion in the comments, but I’ll be doing my best not to let exclusive or unjust comments slide. I may call you out on it. I’m not mad at you, but I am pointing out a paradigm that can’t be perpetuated.

Author’s Note
Above, I said that taking from someone else to please yourself could be called rape. That’s not correct. Rape has a very clear definition, and I don’t mean to diminish that definition by applying it to being photographed. I apologize for that.
However, I’m standing by “assault.” There are a few photographers, with videos on youtube of them working, that absolutely fit this description with some of their work. Here’s a definition from Cornell Law School:
“[Assault is] intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical injury is not required. “












“I snapped this picture before the guy realized what I was doing; when he saw me, he immediately waved my camera off and stormed away.”
Why did you publish this photo when he clearly didn’t want his picture taken? With this, what can I take from your words?
That’s a good question, KP. I published it here because I’ve published and used it several times in the last decade. I felt I could use it to illustrate the point and show that I’m not pointing the finger of blame without being at fault as well.
Maybe it was a mistake to publish it again.
I wondered about this as well. Personably I would’ve appreciated you telling the story and then maybe having a blank square with a note stating that while you can’t get the moment back and do it differently you can choose to not further share that photo know the human in it didn’t consent and expressed that they didn’t want to be photographed.
That’s a good idea.
That is an ORDER, eh!?
Proving the point, until it’s an amendment to the constitution, there is no ORDER to remove it.
You are so right, KP. In IMHO the guy who wrote this article is just a sweet talking guy. Street photography is simple: You ask for permission and you tell what is happening with images and you ask if she/he wants you to provide any and all the images. And then take a freaking NO for the answer. Im am personally offended and disgusted that you still use an image that was clearly against the victims whish. You misuse people with one hand and talk about respect and equality with the other. There one and one rule that applies to… Read more »
Niels, thank you for your comment. Again, I’ve shown this picture many times in the past. As I said, maybe I didn’t think it through well enough.
I’ve not edited the article now to remove it because I feel it continues to show the issue through these comments. I feel that the damage is done (again) and editing it out now maybe doesn’t change that. Maybe it shows my continuing ignorance and evolution. Maybe it’ll help someone else see the issue better.
I could be persuaded to remove it, but so far no one has sweet-talked me into it.
I think your using the term victim is loaded and prejudicial. Can you demonstrate how this man is being victimized or what harm is coming to him? The picture does not cast him in a bad light and he’s out in public.
Basically people don’t like strangers pointing cameras and taking photos of them in public.. I learned this several ways. 1. I was a street photographer and many people asked me to delete their photo, and many times onlookers said what I was doing was’ ‘odd’ and ‘weird’ and ‘you shouldn’t take photos of people without their permission.’ I learned form this that ‘most’ people are uncomfortable with it despite whatever rationalising away of this street photographers make. I also as a secondary attempt to gauge the average person’t opinion followed another street photographer around and several times people complained about… Read more »
I never get this reaction. Maybe you just look like a weirdo. Period!
Wow, this is what’s wrong with street photography and the author just explicitly violates a person for his own commercial interest.
I see your points. However, maybe you should try to make up your mind about the subject before writing about it in such antagonistic terms. I understand that it helps you evolve, but writing for an audience is not primarily about yourself.
No, the writing is not for myself. My mind is made up that things must change, I just don’t have the answer. I’ve written in an ‘antagonistic’ manner to make it clear that this is a real issue. Other responses to this issue I’ve read by photographers sweep it under the rug and tout our right to do whatever we want in public to make pictures. You sound frustrated, which is how I feel, too, as well as embarrassed that I’ve been part of the problem.
I do not think Son’s position is particularly valid… it only makes sense if you consider women to somehow be less than all others (and therefore needing more protection). And the requirement of getting consent can be problematic because it automatically changes the dynamic of the situation. As you said, instead of “recording” you are then “creating,” and your impact on the scene cannot be avoided. IMO, a large part of street photography is to show the beauty and interest in the world around us that so many never see (because they don’t look). Not necessarily to “create it.” I… Read more »
Steve, I think you and I are on the same page for the most part. However, about Son’s position being invalid, I think you’ll think more about that and change your mind over time. It’s not about being “less”, but I think it probably is about needing help getting protection from men. And let’s be honest, it’s mostly white men who can get away with sticking their camera in a woman’s face. Go up to anyone who’s not a photographer and say, “Did you know that if you are at the park I can photograph you and make prints and… Read more »
Why is being a woman different from being mentally diverse, trans, elderly, etc in this context? Personally, I would place children as potentially the most vulnerable (to actual/potential harm at least)… at least equal to young women. Many people have very distorted ideas as to what their rights are; e.g.: There is no “public space” where you have guaranteed rights beyond your basic civil rights; it is all owned/controlled by some one/entity… i.e. in a space where you have unrestricted access your ability to photograph may be limited legally (or any other activity). If it is private property you do… Read more »
I agree that children are especially to be protected. I think the reason we’re talking about women’s privacy is simply that it was a woman who wrote about her experience. I’m suspect/assume that the legislation she seeks would apply to children and others as well. And you nailed the issue: we can make pictures of someone from outside their home and it may be legal — even though any non-photographer would immediately tell you that it absolutely invades their privacy. We’re talking about a “common sense” issue that just isn’t being treated with common sense. Google Bruce Gilden and you’ll… Read more »
IDK. Is it “common sense” to think you can stand nude in front of an open window and no-one can see you? And if I happen to pass by and see you I’ve somehow invaded your privacy?
These types of things, which puts two individuals (rights/wants/feelings/etc) in opposition, are very tricky to regulate. Any hard/fast law that makes one “right” and the other “wrong” is probably going to be very problematic.
BTW, there are “Peeping-Tom” laws that would/could make taking pictures of you nude through your window a criminal offense (rather than a civil privacy offense, which police cannot regulate).
Let’s not invalidate the positions of marginalized groups. Instead, let’s listen and learn how to do better. Advocating for women doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to other marginalized groups. Marginalized groups are not “less than”. But they are actively targeted and harassed. They are not treated equally in our society. This is why hearing their experiences and learning from them is so important. I don’t understand why the idea of not taking photographs of people without permission is so outlandish. Why not explore how that would work? Why not ask what exceptions might be considered, like for journalistic or documentary… Read more »
Thanks, Michael, those questions make me think more.
I was saying/trying to say that the position needs to be directed towards more… I went and read Son’s post, and I didn’t see anything that indicated concern other than for herself/women. I’m open to possible solutions… I think requiring permission to use (distribute/display) an image of an individual makes some sense (not necessarily of an image which includes an individual). If there is less likely hood of getting the required permission, and being able to use the picture in any way, then there is less motivation to take the picture (of someone in a negative light). Harassment is already… Read more »
Those are good points, and as you said, it would be difficult to regulate. I just hope we can regulate ourselves.
I disagree totally with Son’s view. She seems rather uninformed and self-righteous, as were the cops in the two cases she presented. Any cop worth their salt would have said that the photographers in BOTH cases were within their rights and had no legal obligation to delete or destroy the images. People have their images taken THOUSANDS up THOUSANDS of times a year if you live somewhere like NYC, drive a car, or just leave your house. Cameras are everywhere, every phone is a camera. Just because someone is taking your picture in public with a DSLR does not make… Read more »
Sean, I agree Son’s actions seem more like the police should have taken action against her. I don’t envy the cops that have to deal with that situation and people as passionately engaged as Son says she is. But it’s people like her, very loud and patient people, who often get their way.
Patient? She physically attacked a photographer and tried to steal his equipment.
If I had been the photographer that she grabbed and held, I would have pressed charges of assault, attempted robbery and unlawful imprisonment. She strikes me as someone with a chip on her shoulder.
Should it also be illegal to look upon someone. Or gaze upon them. Like a taking a photograph with your eyes and to be later communicated in some way to another. You are saying in effect to outlaw cameras in public. That’s the logic of your stance. Kind of silly if if wasn’t so ridiculous though. Lol. Ugh. Such an extreme view so why am I wasting my time here with your only purpose to increase views for yourself. Pathetic.
I have a feeling you didn’t make it past the title. Read again, and then we’ll talk.
Maybe you shouldn’t have made a click bait title. Cuts both ways, doesn’t it?
And yet, it’s not simply clickbait, is it? Changing from “taking” to “making” could be all that needs to change.
I think Steve has a valid point. I’m just disappointed that you’ve fallen for the indoctrination.
Ack! This was the wrong response. That was supposed to be on another comment. I apologize.
Steve, My stance isn’t to outlaw cameras in public. My stance is that someone else is trying to significantly limit their use RIGHT NOW. If photographers don’t find a way to limit themselves, someone else will.
Man, you need help. I feel for you.
Thanks, John. I do need help. I need help showing photographers that change is going to happen with or without their input.
If I had a nickel for all the “wise men” who tried to push their opinions on others I’d be a rich man.
If you’re talking about me pushing my opinion, then you’re right. If you think I’m claiming to be wise, then you didn’t read the article.
By saying this, aren’t you pushing your opinion on others?
I don’t think Levi is “pushing” his opinion on others. It seems to me that Levi is simply extending an offer in case others find it useful — sharing a perspective based on his own experiences and what he wants to challenge himself to learn as a photographer and a person. It’s up to others if they want to accept it or not.
No matter where you are or who your with, you will always run into little bumps in the road. Having to deal with a rude person is annoying. We could make it against the law to be rudeans annoying. It is against the law to spit on the side walk. I wonder how that came about. It seems to me that you are looking for a society where every one follows the rules. In that case I wonder how you might find time to control every one all the times. That’s big job.. So you may want a policeman one… Read more »
Sherr, you’re right — police on every corner watching out for photographers would be terrible. That’s what I want us to discuss together so that we can avoid that. Taking care of myself is definitely a full-time job, and it’s not my place to tell others what to do. I’m just hoping I can point out something generally that folks can adjust for themselves personally without government intervention.
This is so important. Keep going, I’m here for the conversation as well. I’ve chosen to mostly opt-out of street photography for these reasons and a few more. Do I feel the pang of loss when I don’t take the amazing photo in front of me? You bet. But consent and a safer world are more important to me.
It is difficult to justify the equivalence being made between the taking of public photos and assault. If we were to equate the two, it would lessen the significance of actual assault. There is a point where it becomes more important to preserve the freedom of documentation than to preserve the feelings of individual people. I think making public images illegal would be a huge mistake… not to mention that photojournalism/photo-activism would be entirely illegal. I think your frustration can be reconciled without rewriting any laws. I think a better way to approach this is to work against the forces… Read more »
Jake, I’ve used a few words, like assault, outside their very specific and lawful definitions. I’m reconsidering that because, as you point out, I don’t mean to demean those definitions.
On the other hand, google Bruce Gilden and Tatsuko Suzuki and you’ll see videos of them at work, and it’s hard to find another word that expresses how they sometimes work.
You always refer to two extreme street photographers who, in my view, bring this genre into disrepute. I cannot accept this generalization. I am a street photographer and I reject the approaches of Bruce Gilden and Tatsuko Suzuki. So I don’t want to be lumped into the same pot either. And in Son’s case, would she have reacted in exactly the same way if a female street photographer had taken the photos?
Ivan, It’s a good question about the photographer’s sex, though it doesn’t really matter in the end. Yes, the extreme photographers I’m talking about are the kind that Jean Son had a bad encounter with. Son is another extremist who is working hard to ruin it for the rest of us who more concienscious. Somethings going to change; I just hope photographers get to lead the change.
This is such a controversial issue that I do not think that it will ever be satisfactorily resolved. All we can really do to find a ‘happy medium’ is to respect the wishes of those who do NOT want to be photographed and delete their images when asked. As well as to respect the morality laws (written or not) regarding people’s personal space, specific body parts, and embarrassing or intimate situations. The paparazzi-type (for lack of a better comparison) shooters out there (who have no regard for their subject – for the most part) are the ones drawing attention to… Read more »
Scott, it really is those few who reach in and take that are endangering it for all.
Levi, I appreciate your passion for the topic, but you spent very little time telling us about how your own experiences as a photographer have led you to adopt this position (in point of fact, you say you only have regrets about ONE photograph); rather, you take the extreme case of one woman’s experience in New York with a photographer who is obviously a total jerk and you make that out to be a typical interaction between street photographers and their subjects, when as you know yourself it is not. I do street photography in Los Angeles, where I have… Read more »
Michael, That was all very well said, and I appreciate you weighing in. I definitely didn’t write as much as I’d like to have — I cut a few thousand words from this article, and it’s still longer than most people will pay attention to. There are marvelous works of art that have come out of street photography, but there’s a lot of pictures being at the cost of others’ dignity. Google Bruce Gilden and Tatsuko Suzuki, who are celebrated street photographers, and you’ll see videos of them at work that make you wonder if your street photography and theirs… Read more »
I’ve never been comfortable with street photography, taking it or observing it. I tried it early on and it felt very voyeuristic to me. Almost like stealing. I’m glad you are talking about it. I appreciate that you seem a little ambivalent about it still, which is totally reasonable. I take photos of trains, and there is often an opportunity to photograph the train crew at work. From a legal point of view, I can photograph them. From an ethical point of view, though… is it OK? I’ve been thinking about that a lot in the past few years and… Read more »
Thanks for sharing your experience, Steve.
I respect your point of view, but I don’t understand your frustration. I saw your different sites where you are showing your work, very professional and detailed. I also want to congratulate you for becoming the photographer for Utah State Univ.
I also read that you are “studying to be a better hunter.” I’m quite confused here, would you elaborate more on the type of hunting? I shoot street photography but I use it as a healing tool that keep me connected with society. Previously, I was in the Army for more than 2 decades.
Jose, Thanks for reading and weighing in, and checking my credentials. My frustration lies in not having an answer to make things all better for everyone. The legal rights of photographers are being used to invade the perceived rights of individuals. The worst part is that it’s a very small percentage of photographers who work in a way that is endangering this wonderful genre for the rest of us. You said that you use it as a healing tool to keep you connected. When I do street photography, it always helps me get to know a place more genuinely, and… Read more »
I don’t have the answer. It is, after all, a blurry line. For my own comfort level, I generally do not do street photography. When I do, it’s usually something like a vigil, protest, or other public gathering where I have been asked to come, or a situation where I am documenting a situation for a non-profit organization to raise funds. I suppose the advantage of this is that although I have permission, it’s for a general situation, and therefore far less “staged” or “contrived”. But again, this is my comfort level. It may not be someone else’s. Good thoughtful… Read more »
Thanks for reading, Ken, and weighing in.
Buddy, you are going to get a lot of feedback on this article, but let me say I appreciate you writing it. This is a difficult topic that includes cultural taboos, legal rights, and vague concepts such as “what is art?” – no small can-of-worms to open. But, knowing you, I know this is an earnest and honest question of how to approach “street photography” or public photography in general, when working for your own artistic reasons and not as a credentialed member of the press. And, I think the truth is, that two things can true at the same… Read more »
Brent, Thanks for reading and especially for weighing in. I think you’ve said it better than I did.
Slippery slope. If it’s public it’s fine.
Beautiful article, I fully agree, that’s why I struggle to do street photography. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you for reading.
It seems to me that Ms. Jean Son has some other problems in her life that she needs to take care of, and because of that, she seems to have feelings that people are violating her womanhood? Sounds very much like she has to get a life, and not worry what other people are doing around her. We are going down a road where are freedoms are being taken away real fast. . And the stories she told of being violated, sounded more like she was doing her own violating of those photographers, by assaulting them while grabbing a hold of… Read more »
Daniel, People around her taking pictures are one thing, but cameras inches from her face are another. I’ve seen videos of photographers working this way, putting themselves very close inside others’ space to make a picture. This isn’t the same as a picture from across the square or even from feet away. It doesn’t even give them the option to turn away. And it’s perfectly legal. I don’t want it to be illegal; I want the photographer to make a more considerate choice so that people like Son don’t work hard to make it illegal.
True, Levi. I don’t know why “some” photographers want to shoot into someone’s face. I do not do anything sneaky like, nor use a telephoto lens. I’m up front and if someone has a problem, and waves me off, or turns away – fine. My attitude is there are 300 million other people in the country to snap photos of. BUT…. I sure do not want to be threatened by people, yelling at me that it is illegal to do what I am doing, or the silly threats from people that they are going to call the police. A few… Read more »
Thanks for being a conscientious ambassador, Daniel.
Slippery slope when you starting people to not take pics in public simply because they don’t like it. It’s public so it’s allowed.
You’re forgetting that when we’re talking about it in public spaces it doesn’t matter. As it’s public.
This is such an important essay, I had to join the community. I disagree that street photography of women is equivalent to rape. I think equating the taking of a picture as assault is not always accurate, though there are certainly cases where it is. It is more often stealing than assault or rape. This may seem like semantics, but words are important. I absolutely agree that we need to be considerate of our subjects. I disagree that photography should NEVER be about making a subject uncomfortable. Think of photojournalists or others catching Sen Cruz in his hypocrisy of fleeing… Read more »
Steven, Thank you for weighing in. I’m going to add a note about the use of rape — that’s a very specific word, and I’ve mis-used it here, but I don’t have a better word than assault, yet. There are people who jump in front of people and put a camera inches from their face and steal a picture, much in the same manner a cutpurse would steal a purse. It’s hard to watch the videos of Bruce Gilden and Tatsuko Suzuki on youtube. They are celebrated photographers, but the way they sometimes work is eye-opening. And thanks for seeing… Read more »
I’m perplexed because I think your experience as an academic is skewing what street photography has morphed into because of social media. It’s amplified the work of those that are not thinking about ethics and those individuals are not considering anything but their approach. For example, Bruce Gilden’s approach is aggressive meanwhile 98% of the people I know who shoot street photography don’t take photos that way, they wouldn’t even try it. As a woman, I am okay with being photographed as long as it’s not too close (within 2 feet of me) or from a low angle where they… Read more »
Dani, I appreciate you weighing in. To clarify, I work at a university and have done so for less than one year. The ten years previously were spent as a freelance photographer, and street photography has been a favorite genre for twelve years.
It’s that 2% of aggressive photographers who are endangering the genre for the rest of us because there’s another 2% of non-photographers, like Jean Son, who are passionate about being against it. She is actively working toward legislation against street photography. That could ruin it for the rest of us who appreciate its long heritage.
Good reply, Dani
Sorry, but what a load of woke malarky. Sure, some street photographers are overly aggressive (don’t like that style and it’s dangerous). But all the “woke” talk in the article is just ridiculous. You want to combat racism and make people feel less violated, fine…But street photography is not either.
Sean, I used to agree with you. But it seems like if racism is worth worry about, then so are the concerns Jean Son is working to legislate against. And the fact is that some — very few — photographers are assaulting people to make a picture. It doesn’t matter how few they are, the legislation that could be born against them will affect the rest of us, too.
Interesting article! I agree with your premise that those who thrive on grievance culture will continue to seek out new ways to restrict freedoms and to create new ways to be a victim. It’s sad to see, but that is the trend of the times. I disagree that the Ansel Adams quote you provided applies as a supportive argument to restrict street photography. He was talking about being intentional with respect to composition, lighting, editing, etc. Taken as a whole, the richness, depth and raw humanity that street photography has added to both the medium and our culture is far… Read more »
Gregory, Thanks for your comment. I like the way you said that. I think I’ve miscommunicated with you on the Adams quote, however. I don’t mean it to justify restricting any genre in the least. I mean that using it to change the way we think about photographing people on the street could help bring back the humanity you mention and act as a precursor to other people legislating against us.
I am glad you brought up this topic. It is better to be proactive about change!
Gregory, That’s my purpose. Awareness.
Thanks for this reply, a more patient and eloquent me would have worded it exactly like this.
As a female street photographer I feel a bit left out of this conversation. Most of Miss Son’s anger seems to be toward male photographers but the restrictions would apply to all photographers-male, female, all races. I am certainly not in favor of legal restrictions on public photography. I really have a great love and respect for the genre. To ask permission or avoid all photos of women in a shot just to me would be impossible as a photographer to adhere to. I read some of Jean Son’s twitter feed and she voices a fear of a cause and… Read more »
Thank you very much for weighing in, Mary Jo. I’m on board with your way of thinking.
Levi – I know you to be a kind, generous, thoughtful person. I believe you have the best of intentions. But I get nervous when anyone proffers a position that could be interpreted as them being the “photography police.” I have spent decades fighting for photographer’s right to photograph. Thankfully, I’m left out of this convo because I am not a street photographer. But I have heard language from well-meaning, do-gooder, birders who attack my bird photography that mirrors some of what you are saying and I find that very dangerous. I applaud your courage for standing up for something… Read more »
Scott, Thank you very much for the benefit of the doubt. I believe I have the same feeling that you do that we should fight for our right to photograph, even the right to invade someone else’s personal space to do so. The danger I see here is that people outside of photography are beginning to fight to restrict us, and some photographers are only responding with, “It’s my right, so there.” That attitude makes it easier for the general public to agree that restriction is necessary, and in the recent climate, I believe photographers need to wake up and… Read more »
I think as with all things in life, there is balance in street photography ethics. There are many street photographers that we admire because they saw the value of a moment as it happened; we’ve also denigrated famous and beloved photographers when we found out a supposed instantaneous moment was actually staged. We can’t play this game both ways. If we made illegal what we currently know street photography to be, there would be no street photography at all; what you have instead is an informal or environmental portrait session, or urban art that is created, or photos that border… Read more »
Miachelle, Thank you for weighing in. I think I agree with you. I just hope New York doesn’t take any legal action whatsoever. Once laws start regulating photography, there is so much danger for all kinds of photographers. I hope we can regulate ourselves and continue making art.
This is an excellent conversation and dialog to have. I’m in agreement that we make photographs and it’s a relationship between the artist and the subject. Both need to be respectful of each other. I believe the camera is powerful, and yes it can take away from the subject. This is very subjective! Is this a news situation? In public, or public view? Then asking or consent is not a part of the process. Street photography as an art form. This is where we as visual artist need to be sensitive to people, culture, and places. We as visual artists… Read more »
Thank you for commenting, Bob. You’ve explained that so it’s easy to consider.
Strange article sequel to an article published months ago. Controversy in street photography: sure, and the controversy is legitimate Street photography is assault: false or at least not demonstrated Art shouldn’t violate anyone: debatable “If photographers don’t find a way to limit themselves, someone else will”: The risk is real but I don’t see how your article contributes to diminish it. The a priori request for consent is not consistent with the philosophy of street photography that the photograph should not be affected by the photographer. The a posteriori request that could be consistent poses such practical problems and understanding… Read more »
Henri-Pierre, Thank you very much for your comment. I’m sorry you couldn’t access the article by Jean Son. In it, she describes having a camera pushed inches from her face while chatting with her mom. She is not a notable celebrity, just a citizen, so it’s not paparazzi. It could be easily argued that this fits the definition of assault. As you say, getting permission isn’t always feasible, and I do not think it should be required. I think our freedom of speech is dependent on that. However, because of the way a few photographers act toward their subjects, that… Read more »
It doesn’t matter whether your intent is pure or not; It doesn’t matter whether you are in it for the art; It doesn’t matter whether the person in the photo is vulnerable or not; it doesn’t matter whether they are female or male; it doesn’t matter whether they mind in the end or not, the truth is that in order to make a candid photo you have to photograph a person without their consent. Anyone who is honest acknowledges that they feel somewhat violated when they notice someone photographing them or their friends/family/associates without their consent. In today’s world, it… Read more »
Thanks for weighing in Candidart. I think I understand how you feel. Getting caught making candid pictures happens to everyone, and probably more often than not. Speaking to anyone still reading, how you deal with getting caught makes all the difference. If you turn away and act like you weren’t making a picture, then you were being sneaky and sneaky people are up to no good. But, if you get caught and smile and wave, or maybe even walk over and show the picture, then you aren’t sneaky and almost never get in trouble, and it may lead to more… Read more »
I’m sorry man as someone who do photography for the last 20 year I’m terrified by what you wrote , not only that you are absolutely wrong you are ruining what left in the photography world as untouched and candid . What do you mean by inclusion some things represented by some peopleore then other and some scene would be more this or that so what do you mean by being being inclusive. And as far as the young lady you mentioned her article was just as wrong as yours . If some photographers being rude or ass****s it’s not… Read more »
Roey, I appreciate you weighing in. And I don’t think I disagree with you, except about Son’s article being ‘wrong.’ It doesn’t matter how wrong she is, she is trying to make legislation that won’t only affect the a******s, but will affect everyone because of the rude photogs. As far as my woke ideology, it’s nothing more than noting that we need to talk about it, not shove our heads in the sand and wave the First Ammendmendment. And I’m not a professor, I’m a photographer. Regarding Bruce Gilden, he has done the kind of rude photography that will get… Read more »
P.s If you in a public space you in a public space . You can’t tell someone what to shoot in a public space it’s a slippery slope that no one wants to live in or by it . And who would be the authority who decided what I can shoot or not . Different culture has different standard of what is private or not not talking about that , frankly I don’t care what you consider private or not in a public space and I’m sure you don’t care about what other think as private or not hence the… Read more »
Again, I don’t disagree.
Public is public. People should be allowed to do photography. We need to stop banning everything everywhere.
Roey. You know everything will be banned before you know it. We’re all part of humanity and somehow that’s bad to photograph. Watch there will be a lot more banned here and globally.
Loved the article
Thanks for reading.
Son said, “But while it’s great that taking photos of specific body parts is considered a crime, any act of photographing someone in a degrading, violative way without her consent in public is wrong and the law should reflect that.” I agree with this statement but it doesn’t sound like the photos shot of this women were taken in that manner. This has nothing to do with the #Me Too movement which is now expanding to every personal grievance a women might have, noted from a women of age. I have a photo journalistic background and photos are better about… Read more »
MJC, Thanks for weighing in. Yes, it’s a sad thing that some people are using photography to degrade others. Son felt that the pictures taken of her degraded her, and she’s working to make that harder to do. But as you say, it’s a slippery slope legislating the freedom to make photos. We’ve got to avoid it, and by speaking to one another about it we at least help keep it at top of mind.
What not use your logic to rationalize speech, the press, religious beliefs, privacy, or just all liberty in general including your right to enjoy your familial relationships without unwarranted social or government interference be made punishable criminal offenses while you’re at it? Will you finally feel comfortable?
Robert, Thanks for your comment. Legislating any of those things, and especially our right to make photographs in public, would make extremely uncomfortable. This article is intended to make people uncomfortable about what’s happening right now. People are making legislation that could inhibit your freedoms.
We all see the TV news media filming people at their worst, being shot, killed, etc, and watch them and support them doing so, they don’t ask permission and we don’t complain. I personally ask permission before I take a persons photo. I usually get a really good model and a great story to go along with it. Kindness has been a very good tool for me in street photography. Try it!
Mike, Thanks very much. I couldn’t agree more. We need both the freedom to perform journalism and a kind mindset to help us treat people well.
The goal of my street photography is to capture an emotion in time. If im reading your discourse correctly we should make all cameras illegal. My god When I capture a couple whether white, black green same couple or what ever I’m capturing the emotion felt. When has emotions become illegal. If Its a white hetro couple them Im a racist?? ALL LIVES MATTER. Sorry, your sensitivity training is lost on me. Ive spent over 25 years in the military and my son was married to a lovely woman of color whom I loved like a daughter. and my kids… Read more »
Phil, Thanks for your comment. I think I’ve miscommunicated with you. Please try reading my words again, and please feel free to give me a call.
White people have the right to exist. Just the same as every group.
I am department chair (Robotics and Automation) at a community college in Colorado. At almost every division meeting there is some form of discussion about equity and inclusion. This has encouraged me to think about my interactions with my students. This also encouraged me to read Levi’s article and all the comments. One of my takeaways (I am no expert by any means. I enjoy most types of photography immensely, including street photography) is that there are, at least, two forms of street photography. One is up close and personal (portrait-style), and the other is more of a “landscape” style.… Read more »
Thanks for weighing in, Dad.
The legality of street photography is a dead issue. No country that values a free and open society has ever done more than place reasonable limitations on it. Essentially – excluding obviously voyeuristic and upskirt photos – if people are in public, there’s no expectation of privacy. Therefore, laws cannot restrict the “taking” of photos. However, what’s done with it after-the-fact is a whole different matter. With the exception of artistic and journalistic purposes, there are (and should be) legal restrictions. To argue otherwise, neglects the priceless value of social documentation. Do we want 21st century society studied in a… Read more »
Thank you, Tom. Those ‘reasonable’ limits are what concern me. It is a slippery slope. No shooting up skirts is reasonable. So is no shooting down shirts, right? If you stick your camera in a woman’s face (as was done to Son), which is perfectly legal, what’s to stop her from accusing him of shooting down her shirt? The thing about the First Amendment is that it is proof the constitution can be changed.
Which means that it’s an issue that’ll continually prompt debate, but little else will ever be done to place more limitations on it.
The conclusion will always be that making it illegal is simply unacceptable in a free society.
… and cause many times more freedom of expression civil rights legal actions than privacy complaints.
I hope that’s the case, too. And I believe photogs could help by being a little more aware.
I am glad I live in the US. I don’t have to think about such things. When you are in public, there is no right to privacy period in the US. We have had legal battles with this and judges agree with the law and our constitution. But you do need to know the law. You cannot take pictures of some government or military installations. Although the police have tried to force photographers to stop taking pictures in public legal battles ensue and the police lose. Fortunately the ACLU will help defend photographers rights through litigation. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights The left will… Read more »
Rich, Thank you for weighing in. “This guy” happens to agree with everything you wrote. I’m sorry my message was misinterpreted. Keep on fighting.
Sorry if I didn’t pick up on that. I reread your post again before I posted my original response and some things like…. However, I’m standing by “assault.” There are a few photographers, with videos on youtube of them working, that absolutely fit this description with some of their work. Here’s a definition from Cornell Law School: “[Assault is] intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical injury is not required. “…. did seem like we had opposing views. Personally, I do not do a lot of street photography because out of courtesy to others… Read more »
Thanks again, Rich. Having published this article, I know what you mean about risking being offensive :D
And it really is a few photographers who are doing “offensive” things. That definition of assault is applicable when a photographer jumps in front of someone walking down the street and actually shoves their camera and flash into the person’s face. That would cause “apprehension of imminent harmful contact” for any normal person minding their business walking down the street.
I appreciate you re-reading my words. Google videos on Bruce Gilden and Yatsuo Suzuki for exapmles.
I took an image of a fisherman in South Africa, after asking his permission to take his portrait. I then submitted it to a competition run by the Portrait Gallery in the UK. I was told that it was rejected as I did not have a signed model release. The image was taken in a public space making it legal, secondly I had a witness to the fact that he had given his permission. It was still rejected.It makes a mockery of street photography if you have to stage every picture and get everyone to sign a model release who… Read more »
Thanks, RI, those are excellent examples of the potential trouble we face.
All good points. I would though, suggest that any one in the practice of street photography consider the micros and the macros: The micro view is to know the local law. In many places, just pointing a camera at anyone or thing that is military or law enforcement can get you in a whole lotta trouble. The micro also includes knowing the local culture. Some places are much more camera friendly than others. As for the macro, ‘read the room.’ A family walking up a steep incline on the Great Wall with tourists, phones and cameras everywhere, most likely no… Read more »
I appreciate your comments, John. Thanks for weighing in.
So I have a question. If I am taking a picture of a landmark during a busy time and a group of women walk Into the frame. Is that a crime? Can no public picture ever have people in it? Where do you draw the line?
The great thing is, Ryan, that it is not illegal. It’s not illegal in the United States for you to photograph them in public at all. Even if you shove your camera in their face to do it. That’s the right we need to fight for, but we’d have to fight a lot less hard if we were more considerate of those we photograph. Thank you for thinking about the issue.
You are not an artist. Your mind is not free and you strive to push people into your little boxed thinking. You are making the world a worse place. This is all just terrible nonsense.
Fom, Thanks, I guess. Freedom of speech is a First Amendment subject, which is what I want photogs to realize is being threatened. As far as me being an artist, that’s part of the issue, too, isn’t it? Are the photographers who assault passersby creating art? And is that art worth the threat of having our freedoms attacked?
Just as you denigrate someone for “little boxed thinking,” your assertion is the epitome of “little boxed thinking.” The act of reviewing one’s own works, efforts, and perspective is actual self-awareness, and that’s becoming increasingly rare as we collectively look to the world to change on our behalf. What makes the world a worse place is abuse and ignorance. Abusing the privilege of photographing in public. Being ignorant – willfully or intentionally – of the impact on others. The entire point of the article is to express dismay and frustration at how a relatively minor fraction of people can turn… Read more »
I think you understand me better than I do, Scott.
Levi, I’m going to have to disagree with the suggestion that we make street photography illegal, because it’s a symptom of a much larger issue: the intersection of humanity and technology. Clearly technology enables some of the worst elements of humanity, but it also enables some of the best. We can’t be so afraid of abuses that we stop progressing. Skipping to the end, I would suggest we consider the conflict of rights as a basis for discussion, where we address individual actions rather than try to prevent all elements of a given behavior. First of all, we can’t prevent… Read more »
Scott, next time I’ll have you write the article. You’ve summed it up nicely. Thank you for weighing in. And, yes a podcast is a great idea.
I think by all these comments it’s well on way to being banned. The capturing of humanity and photography will be banned.
Thank you for this article. I am about to start retirement and want to become a better artist. This has helped me to understand my own shyness at making photos of other people, and has given some tools to move past my reservations and include people more in my photos in a way that is respectful.
While, as an amateur photographer, I fully understand your argument here and can relate, as a Black man, to ‘being victim’ vs. perpetrator, in reality, anyone in the public domain is visible to everyone who notices them! So is taking a picture for others to see any more of an imposition than others noticing that moment just using their vision? If 150 people visually capture a moment in their eyesight vs. 150 people see the same scene/moment in a photo, what? Now I will give some credence to a photo not necessarily capturing the totality of the circumstances preceding and… Read more »
I think you had it right when you wrote ‘…including my word choice, in the spirit it is intended’. 1st I don’t agree with anyone causing the kind of experience Ms Son faced But I also believe this applies to any group (i.e. religious, indigenous etc…). The problem with any law is how do you weed out those without ethic or compassion in short a lack of respect for others. If you had a laws based on ethic & compassion, for discretionary issues, you might do better weeding out the bad while preserving the good… this is opposed to trying… Read more »
I would like people to consider a couple thing: 1) would HENRI CARTIER-BRESSON’s ‘Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare’ (one of the most famous street photography pictures) exist if written permission was required? 2) I find this article this article cast street photography in the same light as an unscrupulous paparazzi despite the countless street, street/documentary and street/journalist photographers of great renowned… 3) Is it the photographers responsibility to take ownership of every persons take/reaction or is a general rule ok… has any law covered all ‘takes’ 4) how reasonable is it to require Andre D. Wagner (well respected NY street photographer)… Read more »
I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise. The moment anyone steps out in public, privacy goes out the window. To suggest otherwise implies that everyone else’s rights are subordinated to anyone who demands privacy in public, ergo there are not “public spaces” at all. To suggest that snapping a picture of someone is akin to rape is simply insane. I know you wrote a disclaimer at the end of your article disavowing this comment, but it simply stands out as a Freudian slip in my opinion. I see photography in two different scenarios: professional photography and amateur photography. And professional photography… Read more »
Thanks for chiming in Emiro. Answering the end first, the commercial use of a publicly-made photo of a person is currently not allowed. That’s what model releases are for, and that’s a good system.
Regarding the “rape” comment, I’m not the first to make the comparison, and the definition of assault can be accurately applied to the way some people make pictures.
My main point stands: unless we think about what we’re doing, a noisy few will work hard to take our right to photograph in public away based on the way a few rude photographers work.
Folks, no matter how much we love this art form, it’s only a question of time until it goes down the toilet. Software is getting smarter and smarter and people are going to be able to find photos of people that are in your pictures soon enough That means if Susie housewife googles her name and her face shows up in one of your pictures you can be sure she’s gonna be mad about it. I think it’s only a question of time until the door closes on street photography.
I live in London and do street photography as an exploration experience/hobby. It’s not the in-your-face type of street photography. I find that both aggressive and…boring! I mean…faces of individual people rushing into you or past you, 90%of the times looking at their phones or looking back at you with a “wtf” expression on their faces…what’s the story there exactly? It’s not even good portraiture in most cases. I can already see the gallery titles: “Grumpy man commuting…woman in a rush reading twitter…a young adult frowns as he spots the photographer”. Please. You’re right, that’s not art. But not because… Read more »
Taking bad street photography like the content within this “article” by a dilettante photographer should be illegal. Perhaps, you should read something like “Bystander” by Colin Westerbeck so that you can educate yourself about what actual street photography should look like instead of the schlock you say should be illegal.
I did a lot of candid street photography in the early 1970s in Boston. That was a different era when almost anything went, and not just in photography. My intent was to document ordinary life in the streets and I seldom asked anyone for permission to take their picture. I didn’t want people to pose for me. That would have ruined the moment. I also did other genres of photographs: cityscapes, architectural, abstracts, close-ups, etc. At the time all my work was well accepted. Fifty years later I dug out all my negatives and slides, scanned them and began occasionally… Read more »