photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Forty-Four: Photographing human response – gesture, body language, and expressions > Curbside call, Berkeley, California, 2007
previous | next
12-JUN-2007

Curbside call, Berkeley, California, 2007

She sits on the curb of busy Telegraph Avenue, knees pressed together, elbows firmly anchored on them, covering her mouth as she speaks. There is no one near her, so she is probably not concerned about being overheard. Her body language speaks more loudly than her voice here. She folds herself around her phone – a study in withdrawal. With the coming of the cell phone, conversations are often on public view. How we feel about what we say and hear during such conversations is on public view. The body speaks as much as the voice here, and so does the camera.

(I am often asked if it is ethical to photograph strangers from a distance under such circumstances. My answer is always the same. Ethical photographers should never violate the privacy of another human being with their cameras. However, once a person enters a public space, whatever they may do there becomes public, and not private. Photographers in a free society should be able to express themselves about whatever they may see in public spaces and photograph whatever they want, and share the results, as long as it is for non-commercial purposes. The law, at least in the USA, calls it “fair use.” In the case of the images in my cyberbook, all of them are made as teaching examples for educational purposes, which in many societies is considered “fair use.”)

Leica V-Lux 1
1/640s f/8.0 at 88.8mm iso100 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis19-Jan-2008 03:36
They are being paid for it, but that payment is for their work as journalists, not as commercial photographers.
Journalists are able to photograph people in public places for news purposes without restricted, at least in the USA.
It is free speech. Subjects can't object, as long as the picture is used for editorial, informational, or educational purposes and have been made in public places and spaces. Hope this clears it up, Vera. It all comes down to how and why a picture is USED,
Guest 18-Dec-2007 01:39
Phil,
When a person is photographed by someone who in turn sells the photo to a newspaper...what happens? Photojournalist don't ask for permission to use the photo but they are getting money for it.
Vera
Phil Douglis25-Jul-2007 16:35
Thanks, Charu, for pointing out the role of the darkness in this image. It does indeed help define the space around her as private. And as you note, so too would an image casting the world in light and the subject in darkness. Thanks for making these good points -- the role of the interplay of light and darkness as an indicator of privacy, solitude and loneliness is very important.
Guest 25-Jul-2007 14:40
her body language conveys exactly what you have described here - in addition, it is interesting that the light falls on her while most of her surroundings are dark - it speaks even more of being in a "private space", her own world - so to say, even while in public... the inverse would have also conveyed the same (she in darkness)...
sunlightpix27-Jun-2007 16:36
With the age of the camera phone, anyone can be a street photographer or a paparazzi, and immediately transmit images around the world. Some subjects withdraw while others actively seek exposure. Welcome to the 21st century!
Phil Douglis27-Jun-2007 00:43
Yes, it is fair use, Rosemarie -- however, much would depend on how you use the images. As art or journalism or education, no problem. But you could not use those images for commercial purposes without their or their estates permission.
sunlightpix27-Jun-2007 00:00
Is it "fair use" in public places to photograph mentally ill people, unconscious people (either from drunkeness or accident) or the dead when they are not able to give their consent to be photographed?
Phil Douglis19-Jun-2007 23:26
It all depends upon kind of window you are talking about. If the people are in a public space, like a restaurant, I see no ethical problem. But I certainly would not covertly photograph a person inside of their home without their knowledge. That is an invasion of privacy. As for shooting vendors wares, if they display them on a public street, I see no ethical issue. If someone objects, however, I just walk away. But I don't think it is right to walk into a person's store and make pictures of their wares without their knowledge. Everything comes down to context and intent, Carol. Thanks for this comment.
Carol E Sandgren19-Jun-2007 21:58
I agree with your thoughts on photographing people in public places. I don't think it alright if one were to shoot a person through a window though, although I do it and I'm sure we have all been tempted to! Then I think it really is an invasion of privacy. What about photographing people's wares on the street such as the vendors who seem to always get upset when you point your camera at their stuff??
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment