Should it be illegal to photograph someone without his or her permission?

No, public figured have a limited right to privacy.

 

i've probably said this in this thread before: it entirely depends on the context.

everyone has a moral right not to be annoyed nor harassed. that's one aspect.
as big and pertinent though, is whether were talking about a photo specifically and intentionally OF them,
or one in which they simply happen to be a passerby.

in japan i've noticed they've gone to something of an extreme on this, with nearly every face, every one where possible,
gell fuzzed out, in the train cab ride videos i like to watch and download on youtube.
(even some places they show the interior for a distance instead of the view outside.
maybe someone was working topless in their vegetable patch?)

even google street views have to obscure a lot of signage, and especially license plates, that they might otherwise be liable to litigation were they clearly visible.
(don't ask me why. sometimes i've seen perfectly ordinary street or traffic signs obscured this way. why?).

i'm a firm believer in creative commons, and i understand no reason an annonimous face, can't be left visibly annonimous.

but as for taking pictures specifically of an individual, i'm sort of almost against ever doing that deliberately at all.

 

No, but I do think under certain circumstances it's pretty unethical to do so.

 

I do think people should ask permission, because it's common courtesy, especially in public. People should DEFINITELY ask permission to take pictures of other people's kids. If they don't, then they are fuckin creeps. But moreso, I hate that people take photos and post videos to make other people look ridiculous and embarrass the shit out of them.

 

A few years back I was taking pictures of a parade. I knew a few people that were in it. As I was taking their picture a young "woman" walked right in front of me. Turns and starts screaming " Don't take my picture you F**ken pervert. Well if she did not walk right in front of me she wouldn't had to worry about it. The people around me at the time told her to just shut up and move on. No one was in the area was happy with her or her mouth. So as far as I am concerned anyone in a public location that ends up in a photo is basically fair game.

 

Everytime somebody takes a photo of me there's a ghost standing next to me with their finger up at the cameraman.

 

Where and when will this PC shit end?
Should I be allowed to state my opinion on a Social media site - (like HIP??)
Before posting a response, should I PM either the thread starter or comment maker to whom I am responding to, if they mind me saying something - just in case it offends???

 

I think we have to redefine harassment laws, and these should include something about taking dozens of pictures of someone without their permission. It's a use of someone's body that they're not being paid for. It's like rape. And it doesn't matter who the photographer is doing it for. Companies don't have permission to do that, either.

I think we have to make exceptions for some sensational stories, though. Like, if a guy was going to the moon, you couldn't just expect people to not snap pictures of him. Or her. It could be a girl.

 

This wouldn't have been such an issue before social media. Ending up on someone's physical photograph to be looked at twice then get dusty in an attic wouldn't really worry anyone. Now it's all going to end up on the internet.

What about kids? Obviously parents photograph their kids like they did 20 years ago.. But now they put it on social media. What age should a child gain control of their own social media? Because I'm really glad I didn't reach my teenage years with a whole load of pictures of my 8 year old self on my parents' facebook.

 

PRIMITIVE TRIBESMEN / TRIBESWOMEN do not like their pictures / photos taken, as they believe it CAPTURES THEIR SPIRIT / SOUL!!!

PHOTOGRAPHS can be used by VOODOO PRIESTS / PRIESTESS' to initiate a CURSE, or CONTROL over a given targeted person!!! Or they just use a DNA SAMPLE of that person, like a lock of hair. DNA molecules are like little FREQUENCY (RADIO) RECEIVERS / TRANSMITTERS Most PHOTOGRAPHS contain SILVER IODIDE (in the SILVER HALIDE form - CRYSTALS).

USES OF SILVER IN PHOTOGRAPHS:
"Traditional film PHOTOGRAPHY relies on the light sensitivity of SILVER HALIDE (SILVER IODIDE) CRYSTALS change to record a latent image that can be developed into a photograph." - "The Many Uses of SIlver" By Emily Claire Ferre - geology.com.

As we know CRYSTALS can record and store CONSCIOUSNESS and DATA, which is why CRYSTALS are used in ELECTRONICS / COMPUTERS. When WATER is FROZEN, it turns into a CRYSTALLINE-STRUCTURE, thus WATER is a "LIQUID CRYSTAL" (until it is FROZEN)!!! SILVER HALIDE (IODIDE) CRYSTALS can, thus RECORD and STORE CONSCIOUSNESS and DNA FREQUENCIES (DATA on a given person).

YOUR BRAIN is a type of "RADIONIC DEVICE", that can RECEIVE, STORE, TRANSMIT and MIX FREQUENCIES!!! IN VOODOO, the PRACTITIONER'S BRAIN receives the DNA information from the given targeted person's BODY SAMPLE or PHOTOGRAPH, MIXES with their INTENT (THE CURSE) and then their brain TRANSMITS the MIXED SIGNAL back into their DNA molecules, which picks up and stores the SIGNAL (to initiate the end desired effect, i.e THE CURSE). The SIGNALS are on a QUANTUM LEVEL and transmit through NON-LOCALIZED SPACE-TIME and DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR!!! "SCALER EMF - LONGITUDAL-WAVES" may play a factor in SIGNAL TRANSMISSION.

JUST BE CAREFUL WHO TAKES YOUR PICTURE (WHETHER LEGAL or ILLEGAL)!!! SOME PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW ALL LAWS, ANYWAY!!!

CAN COMPUTER SCREEN IMAGES and COMPUTER PRINTED IMAGES be used in VOODOO??? I haven't researched this, yet, but TV and COMPUTER SCREENS (like MIRRORS and WINDOWS) can sometimes act as a PORTAL!!! GO ASK ALICE: "ALICE IN WONDERLND - THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS"??? A MIRROR PORTAL!!!

LOVE AND PEACE,
cosmicdust

 

No way it should be illegal!

 

As a photographer, I feel it should be legal to take photos of anyone in public. Part of what makes street photography fun is the spontaneity of it. There should be restrictions on photographing children, however.
Edited to add, many famous street photographers have never asked the people in their photographs for permission.

 

Police wear body camera, but I seen them tell a bystander to stop recording, when they were making an arrest.

 

You should not expect privacy when in public!

 

human faces don't look that good. i'd rather see the scenery they're obstructing.

but having to get their permission if someone happens to walk by? what about deer or leopards? how would you prove you have their permission?

 

This past weekend I was at an event that had over 400 people attending. I took a few pictures of the event. Judging by some of the comments I should have tracked down all 400 plus people to ask their permission to take pictures of the crowd....... Yeah I do not see that working out too well. I think that logic is not going to work.