“A 32-year-old city resident was arrested for allegedly stomping on the face of a college student who was taking pictures at a Liberty Heights park on Tuesday afternoon. Victoria M. Torres, of 211 William St., was taken into custody for assaulting a 22-year-old student who was taking snapshots for a “photography class project” near the water park in Van Horn Park, Springfield police spokesman Sgt. John Delaney said.”
The student was taking photos of Torres’s young daughter, among other subjects.
More…
“Torres approached the photographer and “demanded in a threatening manner” that she delete any pictures containing images of her children, according to Delaney. The student, who wasn’t publicly identified by police, tried to avoid a confrontation and started to leave the park.”As she was walking out, the outraged female came over and punched her twice in the face, grabbed her by the hair and pulled her to the ground,” Delaney said. Torres then “kicked the victim and stomped her face” after the photographer had fallen to the ground, Delaney said.Torres also tried to take the woman’s camera and equipment, valued at about $4,000. Torres grabbed hold of the camera strap in effort to pull the camera from the student’s neck, Delaney said.”
Let’s stipulate that stomping on the student’s face…indeed, stomping on faces generally, is per se unethical. Now that this is settled, did the t mother have a legitimate objection? Was the student behaving ethically?
Yes, and no.
Over at Free Range Kids, Lenore Skenazy defends the student, and opposes the idea that there is anything to be feared in strangers taking photographs of children.
“Stop being so paranoid. I can’t believe the number of people who agree with the spirit that taking pictures is wrong and only think the mom went too far in trying to stop the photographer. When you’re in public, you have no expectation of privacy. No one needs your consent to take your photo and use it however they want.”
Look, I get it. Skanazy’s blog’s mission is to oppose over-protective, over-restrictive, over-programmed and over-fearful parenting, and I am completely supportive. In this matter, however, Lenore, and the student, are just plain wrong.
To begin with, nobody is arguing that it isn’t legal to take photographs of strangers in public without their permission. It is legal. It is also unethical.
There is no reason to trust a stranger to use the image of one’s child responsibly and ethically today, none at all. Artists have taken surreptitious photos and turned their unknowing subjects into art, exhibited in galleries. A spontaneous news photo of a group watching the Twin Towers go down on 9-11 was published to illustrate public callousness and apathy, with recognizable individuals being publicly derided as a consequence. Images can be photoshopped and altered; Americans of the students’ generation are extraordinarily blasé about circulating images far and wide, and placing them on the internet and social media. The face-stomper was quite correct to object. She was just wrong to stomp, just as it was wrong for the student to fail to exhibit the values of respect and fairness by seeking informed consent from the parent before taking photos of her child.
The ease with which digital images can be altered, circulated and published has changed the ethical analysis of this topic completely, though I will argue that it was always unethical to capture the image of a stranger, in paint, pencil or film, without getting the subject’s permission. Today it is clearly unethical to take an identifiable photograph of a stranger without permission, and I believe a parent is obligated to protect his or her children from being exploited in this way, or even being put at risk of such exploitation.
Sorry, Lenore.
_____________________
Pointer and Source: Free Range Kids
Facts: Mass Live
Graphic: Gawker
Ethics Alarms 
I am polar opposite from you on this. You’ve just said that it is unethical for private investigators to use cameras. For police to use cameras. For shops and stores to have security surveillance.
It is illegal to use someone’s image in a commercial manner without their permission. There are defamation laws and harassment laws that protect against other types of misuse. For that reason, there’s no need to vilify or label “unethical” someone who is taking photos in public places, which as a society, we have all agreed is protected by the 1st amendment.
It might be a bit “icky” to you, but it’s a far cry from “unethical”.
Security cameras on private property, such as stores and shops wouldn’t be in this consideration. What a store owner chooses to do on their property, given that they post notice is completely fair. Notice posted, anyone choosing to frequent the store gives consent.
Police photos, as evidence, I assume would be kept wholly private for the investigation.
I think there is a tipping point somewhere in photography where, taking pictures of crowds is not unethical, but at the other end individuals and sma groups should be asked permission. Somewhere in between is the tipping point for needing to ask permission.
Sometimes security cameras on private property take images of sidewalks and streets that are not a part of their property, so I wouldn’t say they are not in this consideration.
So if I take a picture of my child playing in the park – a public space – and there are other children around (identifiable in the image) is that unethical? Is the ethical course of action to get permission from all the present kid’s parents?
Sorry, but I’m with Tim on this one. Taking the picture is not unethical, the use given to it is.
As much as there can be an issue regarding the photograph’s later use, there is an issue of privacy and respect of someone’s person involved. You don’t surrender privacy 100% by going out in public, nor respect of your person.
This topic isn’t a black and white one, so anyone taking a black or white stance is probably wrong.
On that we agree. My take on this instance is that the photographer should have explained what the pictures were for and given the parent the benefit if deleting her kids’ images. From the article it appears she was approached in a threatening manner; and in that case leaving to avoid confrontation looks the ethical course of action to me.
You are correct. You don’t surrender 100% of your privacy. However, by going into public, whatever you show the world whilst in public is not private. The law is black and white on that much.
If you feel you’ve surrendered too much privacy, as in the case of this mother, her only (ethical?) (effective?) recourse is a polite interaction.
As for ethics, it may be “most ethical” to ask everyone you photograph for permission in advance, but that may interfere with the purpose of the exercise.
It may be “more ethical” to ask everyone, after you have photographed them, if you may keep the images you obtained and offer to share them with the subjects.
It may just be “ethical” to snap a few and only use them in the limited ways you are entitled to use them.
In all those instances though, I’d label it on the good side of ethical with the only fear being unethical retaliation.
Check your analysis, Tim. 1) The First amendment allows all sorts of unethical conduct, as you know. 2) The specific issue is children, who are vulnerable, and 3) technology shifted the balance. I don’t think appearing in public should carry permission to be an unpaid artists model.
Arg. Just noticed the title.
(phtography)
So does the 2nd amendment. As individuals, we decide whether using those rights is ethical or unethical in our own context…that is, the person exercising the right. In this situation, a student took pictures of people enjoying a park for a class project. Is her specific exercise of rights unethical?
Children are always vulnerable. I can’t think of the children – it would be catastrophic to the fabric of American society as we know it.
It doesn’t carry such permission. It does carry the permission to be a student’s educational model. That is, you will never be a commercial model unless you agree to it. The photo of you will never be unethical until it is used unethically.
Yeah Jack, I disagree, especially in the context of the 9-11 crowd. When you’re at a newsworthy event, and the media is running around, it is beyond cripplingly stupid to assume that your image is not being captured, and will not be used.
As for the student project…. I still think there was nothing unethical about taking pictures of people in the park, that there’s nothing inherently unethical about capturing images of things that you can see. I’m not sure I see the harm. Universality (Kant, right? I’ll learn the terms eventually): If everyone took pictures of everyone.. There’d be a lot of pictures. The Golden rule: would I want pictures taken of me? Can’t say as I care. And utilitarianism: Seeing as our souls aren’t actually sucked out by the images, having pictures taken really doesn’t do harm.
I agree. If you conversely apply Kant to the proposition of ‘People should be paranoid that photos of them are going to be used for nefarious purposes’, that would equal a pretty miserable existence.
How differently this might have gone had either one of them simply used some manners,
Bingo
Ditto to your bingo. How hard is it to ask? Many cultures are deeply offended by photographs of their children or themselves. Other parents are uncomfortable with it (like me.) The children can’t give meaningful consent. It seems pretty obvious that the ethical approach is to ask.
I agree. But I also see a tipping point at some quantity of individuals being photographed combined with the obvious subject of a photograph. Surely taking a picture at a theme park, in which there may be a dozen or more other children inadvertently in the image is not unethical, given the subject of the photo and the quantity of people ‘accidentally’ in the image? Or do you take an absolutist stance on this… that all individuals should be respectful enough to know NOT to take pictures unless conditions can be met in which no children at all are photographed or only children of willing parents?
“The children can’t give meaningful consent”
That’s an interesting point. Do we really need that? “meaningful consent” To take a picture with someone in it? I just can’t get over how we’re using the same term for something necessary to have images taken as something necessary for sex acts…. It just hits me as extreme. I don’t see the additional harm inherent in taking a picture, any more than simply looking at someone, do we need “meaningful consent” to watch people? How long before an overprotective mother facestomps someone they don’t like watching kids at a park?
Approach confrontations in which you we’ll aggrieved with assumptions of no intended harm until the clearly indicates intent.
“we’ll” should have been “were”.
Ah..I’ll fix it. That one had me stumped.
After re-reading, my comment is still relatively incoherent. I meant to convey that: when anyone feels aggrieved, they ought to confront the individual they feel caused the grievance, but that they ought to approach that individual with the attitude that there was no intended harm, that perhaps the grievance was an accident. Then after further discussion, either it is resolved as “sorry, no intended foul, what can I do to mitigate the harm?” or it is discovered that there was malice, in which case the aggrieved person has a right to ratchet up the intensity of the confrontation.
Agreed.
As an aside, this isn’t the first time a mother has physically attacked someone (not even counting the media) for taking pictures in recent history.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2652262/Thats-little-pervert-Bizarre-moment-crazed-woman-assaults-man-flying-drone-beach.html
Rationalization #44!!!!
😛 I didn’t mean to excuse either person in these cases, it just hits me as insane that some people respond to something as relatively harmless as taking pictures or flying a toy helicopter with a camera (which is what we’d call a drone five years ago) with extreme violence. I think it’s a new thing, and we’re going to hear about more cases like this, I just wonder if it’s because it’s so easy to record batshit crazy behavior, or because people are more willing to resort to violence?
As an aside, I wonder if each and every kid in your illegal immigrant wallpaper has signed a release for their image to be used on your site. I mean, I know it’s “legal” – fair use and non-profit, but how did you ascertain the photo was taken “ethically” within the confines of your analysis for this post? If nothing else, these kids are prisoners on foreign soil – isn’t there an international law about taking photos of prisoners and displaying them? Or is that only for POWs?
If the photographer took the photo “unethically”, what’s the analysis of someone else using the photo and publishing it? Republishing it?
Your protest, right or wrong, is a perfect example of ad hominem.
What!? I don’t follow… is Tim attacking the photographer whose personal character we have not even touched here or Jack who’s not even mentioned in the comment?
He is addressing Jack…
To clarify:
If person A asserts that conduct X is unethical, and then person B (who believes conduct X is not unethical) makes the claim “well you engage in conduct X”, there is an implied assertion that, via hypocrisy, person A doesn’t really believe conduct X is unethical and therefore must admit that it isn’t unethical.
Attacking a person as a method of undermining an argument is Ad Hominem. Attacking hypocrisy or supposed hypocrisy in order to undermine the assertion that the conduct in question is unethical is likewise an ad hominem.
unless… pointing out the hypocrisy is meant to edify the hypocrite so he/she may fix their own conduct. But Tim’s tone doesn’t imply that was the intent.
However, as this topic has several conditions that may cause individual instances to public photography to be ruled ethical vs unethical, I don’t know if Jack’s use of images of illegal immigrants is unethical while other instances definitely are.
Thanks, I see your point now. I took the original comment as trying to get the difference between the background photo and the ones that prompted the confrontation in the post. Now, if there isn’t a difference – ethically speaking – then Jack should change his background (not really, but I don’t feel like typing all my reasoning on a phone). I don’t see it so much as discarding Jack’s point or calling him a hypocrite, more of a “where do we draw the line”?
Thanks? Wait, are you attacking my character and how I discuss subjects with my friends to discredit me?
It’s a good question, Tim. Clearly not, and there are elements of that that trouble me. Of course, this is “news,” and anyone who is legitimately news is caught up in a utilitarian balancing act. The public’s right to know trumps the right to consent before one is photographed. That’s the media’s view. Once the photo is taken and it has been circulated on the web, I think my contribution to an alleged unethical act is de minimis. I didn’t take the photo, and if permission is to be gotten, that is when. Obviously I couldn’t get permission if I wanted to. The harm was done when the photo was taken, if harm it was.
We appear on security cameras almost literally everywhere we go. There can’t possibly be an expectation of privacy when we are in a public place. I hate that this is so, but it is.
As for the ethics of the student taking the photo. If this is for a class I assume the professor has addressed the implications of taking pictures in public before sending his/her students out to face the paranoid world. If he/she didn’t there is an additional layer of unethical behavior.
This and several others of your recent posts are really about good manners. People have an entitled attitude about themselves. We/they just assume if it’s something we want we can go ahead and take it without consideration for what the other person might feel about it. When you think about it it’s really a strange paradox that we are all so paranoid and at the same time so self-absorbed. There are plenty of examples of people getting into a rage about someone “disrespecting” them. You’d think people would be more careful.
Wyogranny, I agree with you. It’s one thing if I happened to be picked up in a surveillance tape; that tape is not singling one person out but is being shot at one angle, stationary and picking up people that happen to cross the camera’s path at random for the purposes of security – should it ever be needed it in the future. For the most part, the security film for the particular day in question, will never be viewed.
However, as a mom in the park: “Excuse me, may I ask you why you are photographing children here?”
As a college student: “Hi, my name is so-and-so. I am a college student and this is a project I am working on. My professor’s name is…. The school I attend is… This is the purpose of the project..If you don’t mind, I would like to take pictures of the kids playing. I will be happy to show you all of the photographs on my camera when I am done. I will delete any that you are not happy or comfortable with. I will send you copies for your own files. This (insert venue of display) is where my work will be shown. These will never be for sale. They are simply for a college project. If you don’t want me to photograph the children at all, I completely understand and will respect your wishes.”
Really, it’s that simple.
Yep, simple manners alleviates a great deal of ethics gray area judgments, as I imagine a large number of ethics gray areas arise out of the competition between privacy, respect, and assumptions made about public life.
I went to a park with my 3 yr old daughter tonight and while I took photos of her playing, I also took a photo of another child not known to me. This anonymous child is obviously the subject of the specific photo I took. Without any further information, you may imply that I have taken no other action or said any words to anyone until now. While my action is understood to be fully legal in the eyes of the law and upheld by cases adjudicated in every district of this country, why is my action unethical?
We are told that we don’t have an expectation of privacy in public. We are told that we can take pictures in public. We understand that not only is this “how it is” but beyond that, it is an individual right- a right that supports many industries. A right that is ingrained into our culture and the very fabric of our country. Some here have called it “bad manners” to ever take a picture before having full consent of anyone potentially in the picture. Well, here’s the rub – consent is given the minute you step into public. Consent to photograph you as you present yourself to the public, in public. If you wish to be unrecognizable, you have options to wear a Burqa, sunglasses, a scarf, etc. To avoid certain places, stay in private places, to tint your car windows, etc.
Now, while you have given your implied consent to be photographed in public by entering the public sphere, you have not given consent to have your image or likeness used beyond the limited and permitted purposes established around “news”, “private”, “incidental” and “educational” purposes. (There may be other permitted uses…) If your image is used unethically in ways that violate your rights, that is a separate matter distinct of the action of taking an image.
Again, I can’t think of the children, they are a part of this society, and in this regard should not be treated differently than anyone else. No one has articulated a single reason why children should be treated differently other than to point out how photos might be used in a bad way without acknowledging how photos might be used in a good way. Neither is relevant to the subject at hand: the action of being photographed.
Straw man, I think, as is the “children who happen to be in a shot of something else” variation. I think those situations raise ethical issues too, but they aren’t the topic at hand. The issue is: is a stranger who takes photographs on other people’s children–that is, they are the subjects of the photo—without concern for the opinions of the parents on the matter, the welfare of the child, or anything else other tahn using someone’s kid for their own entertainment/profit/art/ whatever, engaging in conduct that can fairly be called unethical, as in showing a lack of respect for others, treating people as human beings and not objects and a means to an end (Kant) and normalizing conduct that can and is abused seriously by others…when it is easy, fair and not overly burdensome to do otherwise, as in ask? That is the situation at hand, and that situation is clear to me.
I do not agree that simply bringing your child to a public place constitutes implied consent to have him or her used as an artist’s model and to have his photo splashed all over the web as a result..or to have his image digitally modified to create the opportunity for future humiliation and public embarrassment. It is not implied consent, because few parents realize it is such, which means it cannot be informed consent. The law may say otherwise, but the ethics are different.
[i]…and normalizing conduct that can and is abused seriously by others…when it is easy, fair and not overly burdensome to do otherwise, as in ask? That is the situation at hand, and that situation is clear to me.[/i]
The conduct that follows the law is the normal conduct. The conduct that you are normalizing by unfairly labeling photographers’ actions as “unethical” is censorship. Yes, some photographers have bad manners, but do bad manners equate to unethical acts? No. By making such a decree, on one side you (incorrectly) empower would-be face stomping paranoid people. On the other side, you chill people’s willingness to exercise their rights and lend credence to the acceptability of “prior restraint”.
Censorship is abused seriously by others, others with power. The photographer gets to decide if and when it is easy, fair, and not overly burdensome to ask for permission, not the sideline jockeys. It’s their call to make and sometimes they will get it wrong and display bad manners. That does not equate their action to unethical. That much is clear to me.
[i]…and to have his photo splashed all over the web as a result..or to have his image digitally modified to create the opportunity for future humiliation and public embarrassment.[/i]
Strawman. We’ve said over and over again that what happens to a photo after it is taken requires a different ethical analysis than the act of taking a picture.
[i]I do not agree that simply bringing your child to a public place constitutes implied consent to have him or her used as an artist’s model…[/i]
Your presence in public is consent to be seen. Anything that is seen in public can be imaged. That is the most simple and fair way to ensure that all people feel welcome to exercise their right and participate in photography.
God forbid that a man video recording a police brutality assault in a park is then arrested by the same corrupt officers because there were also children in the background and there was some type of prior-restraint censorship law that gave the officers cover under color of law.
[i]It is not implied consent, because few parents realize it is such, which means it cannot be informed consent. The law may say otherwise, but the ethics are different.[/i]
Source? Do you really think that many Americans are ignorant of the basics of the 1st Amendment? If they are, is it ethical to be ignorant of such matters? If they are uninformed, it’s only because they choose to be uninformed, but I’d wager that in this age of youtube, surveillance state, and candid cameras that people know their image is being captured in public and the public spaces remain filled with people.