Is it unethical for me to videotape people outside w/o their permission?
February 17, 2022 6:58 AM Subscribe
I want to make a music video shooting video of people going about their business in a park.
I want to take candid footage (using my phone) of kids playing, people running on the track, etc. I don't want to ask permission because that takes all the spontaneity out of it. I believe it's legal to do this in the outdoors (I've done some research about it). But is it Wrong? I have no intention to make money from this (I'll post the music video on my YouTube channel, which virtually nobody goes to, but that's not the point). Oh also, it might not be legal to shoot video in a public park, but everybody does that constantly now, and I don't care about that part.
I want to take candid footage (using my phone) of kids playing, people running on the track, etc. I don't want to ask permission because that takes all the spontaneity out of it. I believe it's legal to do this in the outdoors (I've done some research about it). But is it Wrong? I have no intention to make money from this (I'll post the music video on my YouTube channel, which virtually nobody goes to, but that's not the point). Oh also, it might not be legal to shoot video in a public park, but everybody does that constantly now, and I don't care about that part.
Oh also, it might not be legal to shoot video in a public park, but everybody does that constantly now, and I don't care about that part.
There's usually a difference seen between personal and commercial photography/video and this would fall under the latter.
posted by scorbet at 7:18 AM on February 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
There's usually a difference seen between personal and commercial photography/video and this would fall under the latter.
posted by scorbet at 7:18 AM on February 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
Best answer: In Canada it's legal for artistic/journalistic/literary purposes but not for commercial purposes.
I think you might even run into legal issues given that you are shooting for musical purposes and the video might be seen as a commercial activity designed to promote the music. (A commercial activity is not solely designated by whether you directly make money from it.)
As a journalist, I sometimes took pictures with people in them and used them in stories, but I generally did not publish pictures with recognizable people, especially children, unless that image was accurate to the subject being covered specifically - like I took shots of politicians and put those up.
For me, I think in general no, what you're describing is not ethical. My reasoning on these things, including non-fiction memoir writing, is generally that even if I have the legal right to write accurately about someone or the legal right to take pictures of people, the potential harm to people has to be outweighed by the good. So I'm thinking about someone who is in your park, maybe who can't go to the gym or who is exhausted by childrearing, or a child, who hasn't dressed in a flattering way or is struggling to run well, or doesn't want to be identified as frequenting that space, coming across your video, or having a friend come across your video. Does your desire to have "natural" activities in your video outweigh that potential harm?
posted by warriorqueen at 7:21 AM on February 17, 2022 [17 favorites]
I think you might even run into legal issues given that you are shooting for musical purposes and the video might be seen as a commercial activity designed to promote the music. (A commercial activity is not solely designated by whether you directly make money from it.)
As a journalist, I sometimes took pictures with people in them and used them in stories, but I generally did not publish pictures with recognizable people, especially children, unless that image was accurate to the subject being covered specifically - like I took shots of politicians and put those up.
For me, I think in general no, what you're describing is not ethical. My reasoning on these things, including non-fiction memoir writing, is generally that even if I have the legal right to write accurately about someone or the legal right to take pictures of people, the potential harm to people has to be outweighed by the good. So I'm thinking about someone who is in your park, maybe who can't go to the gym or who is exhausted by childrearing, or a child, who hasn't dressed in a flattering way or is struggling to run well, or doesn't want to be identified as frequenting that space, coming across your video, or having a friend come across your video. Does your desire to have "natural" activities in your video outweigh that potential harm?
posted by warriorqueen at 7:21 AM on February 17, 2022 [17 favorites]
One way to make posting the videos more ethical: ask participants' permission after showing them the footage of themselves. If you're concerned about doing this because they might get angry with you, well, that means it's definitely not ethical.
If you're far enough away that they're not recognizable, I don't see a problem with that.
posted by metasarah at 7:29 AM on February 17, 2022 [16 favorites]
If you're far enough away that they're not recognizable, I don't see a problem with that.
posted by metasarah at 7:29 AM on February 17, 2022 [16 favorites]
What if someone has a stalker, is what I thought.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:30 AM on February 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:30 AM on February 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
Best answer: Once you mentioned kids, I became a hard nope on the "is is this ok" scale, personally. Posting it on youtube also squicked me out - you say no one sees it, but it's out there, which mean the possibility is they could. Youtube is commercial usage as it's monitizable. I think the only way to do this "ethically" is to get permission (perhaps after the fact), or blur out any recognizable features.
posted by cgg at 7:31 AM on February 17, 2022 [22 favorites]
posted by cgg at 7:31 AM on February 17, 2022 [22 favorites]
You should not take photographs or videos of other people's children. Doing this will make the other people uncomfortable. They might call the police. In extreme cases they might assault you. Just don't do this.
If you remove the kids from the equation it gets to be more of a gray area, but I wouldn't do it.
I disagree with your assumption that you can't ask people's permission. You're just not comfortable asking permission. But it is possible and it is polite to ask permission. Part of the skill of photography and videography is to melt into the background, so people act naturally despite what you're doing. If you want to be shooting in public, you should learn this skill, and you should get over your shyness about talking to people. Don't make your discomfort their discomfort.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:31 AM on February 17, 2022 [28 favorites]
If you remove the kids from the equation it gets to be more of a gray area, but I wouldn't do it.
I disagree with your assumption that you can't ask people's permission. You're just not comfortable asking permission. But it is possible and it is polite to ask permission. Part of the skill of photography and videography is to melt into the background, so people act naturally despite what you're doing. If you want to be shooting in public, you should learn this skill, and you should get over your shyness about talking to people. Don't make your discomfort their discomfort.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:31 AM on February 17, 2022 [28 favorites]
Yeah, it's Wrong.
Oh also, it might not be legal to shoot video in a public park, but everybody does that constantly now, and I don't care about that part.
In my area, people constantly make videos/photos/etc. of themselves or of like, wildlife or architecture. When I've seen social media of things like interesting signage in crowded places, the photographers have typically made efforts not to include recognizable people.
Sometimes, people film strangers without permission as a method of documenting conflict and discouraging shitty behavior. Filming people who aren't doing anything to anybody else without their permission is creepy, especially people who are children or underdressed/in workout clothes. I'd encourage anybody who saw you to make a video of you doing this and Tweet or otherwise share it with a title like "CREEPY PERSON FILMING KIDS IN PARK."
I do not think you are entitled to use the images and bodies of people who exist in public space for your own artwork. They are, as you said, "going about their business," not putting on a little show for you to re-use on YouTube. This goes triple if they're children or visibly marginalized in any way.
posted by All Might Be Well at 7:34 AM on February 17, 2022 [18 favorites]
Oh also, it might not be legal to shoot video in a public park, but everybody does that constantly now, and I don't care about that part.
In my area, people constantly make videos/photos/etc. of themselves or of like, wildlife or architecture. When I've seen social media of things like interesting signage in crowded places, the photographers have typically made efforts not to include recognizable people.
Sometimes, people film strangers without permission as a method of documenting conflict and discouraging shitty behavior. Filming people who aren't doing anything to anybody else without their permission is creepy, especially people who are children or underdressed/in workout clothes. I'd encourage anybody who saw you to make a video of you doing this and Tweet or otherwise share it with a title like "CREEPY PERSON FILMING KIDS IN PARK."
I do not think you are entitled to use the images and bodies of people who exist in public space for your own artwork. They are, as you said, "going about their business," not putting on a little show for you to re-use on YouTube. This goes triple if they're children or visibly marginalized in any way.
posted by All Might Be Well at 7:34 AM on February 17, 2022 [18 favorites]
Other people have the right to go about their business without that business showing up in your personal music video. They’re not actors on the You Show. There are a thousand reasons why someone might not want their image appearing in someone else’s art, including not being tracked down and murdered by abusive partners. If you want footage, ask permission and sharpen your directorial chops by finding a way to make them feel comfortable enough to look spontaneous.
You’re not entitled to do this.
posted by corey flood at 7:37 AM on February 17, 2022 [26 favorites]
You’re not entitled to do this.
posted by corey flood at 7:37 AM on February 17, 2022 [26 favorites]
Even if it turns out to be legal, it may not be ethical, because if you're making people uncomfortable or unsafe because they don't know your intentions, you're causing a problem. I know a guy who liked to do this and finally someone called attention to him on Facebook and it grew into a thing where he went on a local news show to defend his position and it just turned into a clusterfuck because "he knows his rights" but that didn't stop people from thinking he was an asshole and him continuing to defend himself just escalated everything. Not saying you're like that, but being respectful in public is more important than legality of your actions.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:38 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:38 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
Yes, it is wrong. I do not exist in public for your artistic convenience. Neither does anyone else. Leave people be.
posted by humbug at 7:40 AM on February 17, 2022 [21 favorites]
posted by humbug at 7:40 AM on February 17, 2022 [21 favorites]
I'd find it creepy AF if you were filming kids in a park without any consent and putting the results on YouTube. I'd find it less, but still fairly, creepy if you were doing the same with adults.
The creepiness might notch down slightly if it was adults only and just in the background and not very clear while you were videoing something specific in the foreground.
Only yesterday I came across a huge row over a photo that some guy had taken of a woman sitting reading in a coffee shop, without her permission, and posted to a photography subreddit, as a "Look how cool this cosy coffee shop is!" but it was basically a photograph of the woman. All hell broke loose.
And there's a park near me where the users group from time to time has posts of people saying "There was this weird guy filming people in the park today, everyone beware!" and loads of comments from other people who'd seen the same person and been perturbed.
posted by penguin pie at 7:42 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
The creepiness might notch down slightly if it was adults only and just in the background and not very clear while you were videoing something specific in the foreground.
Only yesterday I came across a huge row over a photo that some guy had taken of a woman sitting reading in a coffee shop, without her permission, and posted to a photography subreddit, as a "Look how cool this cosy coffee shop is!" but it was basically a photograph of the woman. All hell broke loose.
And there's a park near me where the users group from time to time has posts of people saying "There was this weird guy filming people in the park today, everyone beware!" and loads of comments from other people who'd seen the same person and been perturbed.
posted by penguin pie at 7:42 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
In the U.S., legal considerations only, leaving aside the potential creepy stalker ethical aspects:
Taking pictures/filming in public places with or without permission is generally legal, except when the venue has explicit rules against it.
Using those pictures/videos privately, with or without permission, for your own purposes is fine.
Publishing those pictures/videos as part of legitimate news coverage, with or without permission, is fine. (Covered by the First Amendment press freedom.)
BUT, publishing or selling pictures or videos of identifiable persons, commercially, outside of legitimate news coverage, without their written permission, whether in a for-profit or non-profit environment, opens you up to liability to people for the use of their image without their permission.
There are various wrinkles on the above, some of them covered here. And here.
posted by beagle at 7:42 AM on February 17, 2022 [26 favorites]
Taking pictures/filming in public places with or without permission is generally legal, except when the venue has explicit rules against it.
Using those pictures/videos privately, with or without permission, for your own purposes is fine.
Publishing those pictures/videos as part of legitimate news coverage, with or without permission, is fine. (Covered by the First Amendment press freedom.)
BUT, publishing or selling pictures or videos of identifiable persons, commercially, outside of legitimate news coverage, without their written permission, whether in a for-profit or non-profit environment, opens you up to liability to people for the use of their image without their permission.
There are various wrinkles on the above, some of them covered here. And here.
posted by beagle at 7:42 AM on February 17, 2022 [26 favorites]
(On preview: what beagle said)
I have no intention to make money from this (I'll post the music video on my YouTube channel, which virtually nobody goes to, but that's not the point)
Everyone has covered the "don't do this, it's weird and invasive" part well. But to add one legal point: in most jurisdictions people have a "right of publicity" that allows them to control how their own name or likeness is used for commercial purposes. While you don't intend to make money, if you are using it on your YouTube channel to further your own publicity or artistic aspirations, it's not a stretch to find "commercial" usage. That's especially true if you have ads enabled or if you otherwise sell your art or music on or through your YouTube channel.
So even if you could surreptitiously film children at a park, legally you should get clearances before they show up in your music video.
posted by AgentRocket at 7:48 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
I have no intention to make money from this (I'll post the music video on my YouTube channel, which virtually nobody goes to, but that's not the point)
Everyone has covered the "don't do this, it's weird and invasive" part well. But to add one legal point: in most jurisdictions people have a "right of publicity" that allows them to control how their own name or likeness is used for commercial purposes. While you don't intend to make money, if you are using it on your YouTube channel to further your own publicity or artistic aspirations, it's not a stretch to find "commercial" usage. That's especially true if you have ads enabled or if you otherwise sell your art or music on or through your YouTube channel.
So even if you could surreptitiously film children at a park, legally you should get clearances before they show up in your music video.
posted by AgentRocket at 7:48 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
I agree with most of the opinions above that it’s not a great idea, however if you were far enough away that the people weren’t personally identifiable then I would have a different opinion. Thinking like shooting from across the street through a second story window so it’s just overall activity in the park. I could see that as being potentially really interesting, especially as a time lapse thing like if you filmed an entire day.
posted by MadMadam at 7:58 AM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by MadMadam at 7:58 AM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Addendum to my answer above — I missed where you mentioned you'd publish this on YouTube on a channel "virtually nobody goes to." How many people go there doesn't matter, whether you are putting advertising on it or not doesn't matter, when you post it on YouTube that is commercial use and therefore requires written permission from all identifiable people. (Because YouTube is owned by Google/Alphabet and is clearly a commercial business.)
posted by beagle at 8:21 AM on February 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by beagle at 8:21 AM on February 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
I would be unhappy to find footage of myself on some random person's YouTube channel at all, all the more so if it were part of commercial activity, which this might well be even if you're not exactly rolling in viewers/listeners. I think the ethical bar for using that footage exists but should be fairly high, and "I just don't think it would be as spontaneous as I want it to be" clears that bar. In your shoes I wouldn't feel good about doing what you're proposing to do.
posted by Stacey at 8:23 AM on February 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Stacey at 8:23 AM on February 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
if you're making a music video with the intent of showing it on YouTube, you're not capturing footage for your own use like "everybody does constantly now." People who shoot videos get permission. They post signs around the area or have PAs letting people know that it's going on, so those people have the option not to come through. Right now you have your own definition of how amateur your YouTube channel is, but if you're posting it publicly, it's still an international audience. Anything can go viral out of the blue, anything can be monetized; it's still open to commercial use. I wouldn't be certain that you're within your legal rights once it gets uploaded.
I'm not sure of your age, but if calling what you're doing "videotaping" is a clue to your being on the older side of the millennial / generational divide, you may be seeing this through a different lens (sorry for the pun) than what's going on right now culturally and legally.
It used to be fairly common for people to casually film or take photos in parks and other public places, using crowds and passers-by as background subjects, children included. We'd just take it for granted. That's changed since the internet made it possible for those images to receive an international audience, and facial-recognition technology has made anonymity less of a given. People are also much more savvy about how the media and especially commercial interests use publicly-available images to promote their own agendas (which the people photographed may not agree with at all). And once something is online, it can be there forever - even when those children are adults and may not want photos of their younger selves floating around (think of the case of trans people, for just one example).
Between those two issues, I've seen moms post photos on social media but obscure their own child's face (even infants, whose faces - sorry, and I say this as a mom - all pretty much look alike).
So if this seems harmless because of all the times you've seen it done before, I'd just like to gently say that times have changed, and as a result people's opinions have changed. I'd strongly suggest not doing this.
posted by Mchelly at 8:25 AM on February 17, 2022 [16 favorites]
I'm not sure of your age, but if calling what you're doing "videotaping" is a clue to your being on the older side of the millennial / generational divide, you may be seeing this through a different lens (sorry for the pun) than what's going on right now culturally and legally.
It used to be fairly common for people to casually film or take photos in parks and other public places, using crowds and passers-by as background subjects, children included. We'd just take it for granted. That's changed since the internet made it possible for those images to receive an international audience, and facial-recognition technology has made anonymity less of a given. People are also much more savvy about how the media and especially commercial interests use publicly-available images to promote their own agendas (which the people photographed may not agree with at all). And once something is online, it can be there forever - even when those children are adults and may not want photos of their younger selves floating around (think of the case of trans people, for just one example).
Between those two issues, I've seen moms post photos on social media but obscure their own child's face (even infants, whose faces - sorry, and I say this as a mom - all pretty much look alike).
So if this seems harmless because of all the times you've seen it done before, I'd just like to gently say that times have changed, and as a result people's opinions have changed. I'd strongly suggest not doing this.
posted by Mchelly at 8:25 AM on February 17, 2022 [16 favorites]
It is Wrong even though it may be legal. I have a stalker and if they saw video of me at a public park, somehow, it would not end well for me. Even the stress of noticing someone filming me in public would be very rough and would mess me up with worry over whether or not you were connected to the man who stalks me. Just don't do this -- you have no idea what people are dealing with, and your enjoyment is not more important than other people's safety.
posted by twelve cent archie at 8:31 AM on February 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by twelve cent archie at 8:31 AM on February 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
If people are recognizable it's gross and invasive, and also illegal to post in commercial space like Youtube. I would confront you if you were doing this, it's that inappropriate. Leave people alone, we're going to the park to get some mental rest, not to have to deal with some freak trying to make us feature in his video.
posted by fingersandtoes at 8:35 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by fingersandtoes at 8:35 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
We don’t publicly post photos of our two year old on social media, even our own Facebook accounts.
I’m annoyed when people we know have slipped up once or twice and done so (they know our rules about it) but they’re quick to remedy it.
I’d be enraged if I found out a stranger did this. I’d post screenshots/pictures of them to location specific FB/Reddit/Nextdoor etc, and getting their YouTube channel shut down would become my new hobby.
posted by supercres at 8:36 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
I’m annoyed when people we know have slipped up once or twice and done so (they know our rules about it) but they’re quick to remedy it.
I’d be enraged if I found out a stranger did this. I’d post screenshots/pictures of them to location specific FB/Reddit/Nextdoor etc, and getting their YouTube channel shut down would become my new hobby.
posted by supercres at 8:36 AM on February 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
Michael Jordan sued a grocery store for using his likeness for commercial purposes without his consent and got a multi-million settlement out of it. You got that kind of money if somebody comes after you?
posted by srboisvert at 8:41 AM on February 17, 2022
posted by srboisvert at 8:41 AM on February 17, 2022
You ask them after, if you want candid shots of strangers. You hand them a release form to sign. That being said, if you were filming and were not an obvious person-filming-their-charge-or-friend, I would probably notice and do things to interfere with your filming like stand in front of you, because the potential for ill-use is so high.
posted by tchemgrrl at 8:43 AM on February 17, 2022
posted by tchemgrrl at 8:43 AM on February 17, 2022
Best answer: I'm an amateur photographer who has been harassed for taking photos and videos in public places. My go-to resource now is attorney Bert Krages' PDF "The Photographer's Right". (Krages also publishes a book on photography law, I think.) It's very useful.
As you can see from the responses in this thread, many folks abhor being photographed, whether in public or private. Many people believe it's unethical to photograph somebody else in public. These people are very vocal. That doesn't mean they're right. ("I don't like it" isn't an argument of ethics.)
Because so many people object to it — and because photographing others can indeed come across as creepy — I try to be polite and respectful. When possible, I ask permission. If I thought I might want to publish a photo or video, I'd get a written model release. (You never need a model release to take a photo. You often do when publishing a photo.) I'd urge you to exercise the same caution.
As with many things, context is key. If you're recording video of people in a park during, say, a public festival or on a crowded summer day, it's generally considered much more acceptable than if you're recording a single family alone during a Tuesday afternoon in early spring. (I would 100% do the former without hesitation but never do the latter without permission.)
Count me as the lone voice in this thread who sees little wrong with photographing/filming others in public as long as you're doing it legally and you're not being a creep.
posted by jdroth at 8:53 AM on February 17, 2022 [14 favorites]
As you can see from the responses in this thread, many folks abhor being photographed, whether in public or private. Many people believe it's unethical to photograph somebody else in public. These people are very vocal. That doesn't mean they're right. ("I don't like it" isn't an argument of ethics.)
Because so many people object to it — and because photographing others can indeed come across as creepy — I try to be polite and respectful. When possible, I ask permission. If I thought I might want to publish a photo or video, I'd get a written model release. (You never need a model release to take a photo. You often do when publishing a photo.) I'd urge you to exercise the same caution.
As with many things, context is key. If you're recording video of people in a park during, say, a public festival or on a crowded summer day, it's generally considered much more acceptable than if you're recording a single family alone during a Tuesday afternoon in early spring. (I would 100% do the former without hesitation but never do the latter without permission.)
Count me as the lone voice in this thread who sees little wrong with photographing/filming others in public as long as you're doing it legally and you're not being a creep.
posted by jdroth at 8:53 AM on February 17, 2022 [14 favorites]
Best answer: Has nobody on this thread watched How to with John Wilson? It's one of the most life-affirming shows I've ever watched and never once has it occurred to me to find it creepy. Public filming is allowed in NYC, so he does not need to get a release form from the people he films (from what I've read about the show, that rule changes when he interviews people). I think there is definitely a non-creepy and ethical way to do this, but it's obviously purely a matter of opinion.
posted by cakelite at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by cakelite at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
Oh, another thought.
Often, the best route is to capture the image/footage you want using people you know instead of strangers. You say, for instance, you want to shoot kids playing in a park. As you can see from the responses here, most people today find it creepy if you're recording the children of strangers.
If I were doing this, I'd find friends who had kids and tell them about my project, then ask if I could tag along the next time they played in the park. Most folks would be okay with this. Doing it this way has the added advantage that because you have permission and know the people, you'd feel more comfortable about taking a variety of shots: close-ups, strange angles, etc. Your end product would be of much higher quality because you wouldn't be limited to furtive long shots.
posted by jdroth at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
Often, the best route is to capture the image/footage you want using people you know instead of strangers. You say, for instance, you want to shoot kids playing in a park. As you can see from the responses here, most people today find it creepy if you're recording the children of strangers.
If I were doing this, I'd find friends who had kids and tell them about my project, then ask if I could tag along the next time they played in the park. Most folks would be okay with this. Doing it this way has the added advantage that because you have permission and know the people, you'd feel more comfortable about taking a variety of shots: close-ups, strange angles, etc. Your end product would be of much higher quality because you wouldn't be limited to furtive long shots.
posted by jdroth at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
As with many things, context is key. If you're recording video of people in a park during, say, a public festival or on a crowded summer day, it's generally considered much more acceptable than if you're recording a single family alone during a Tuesday afternoon in early spring. (I would 100% do the former without hesitation but never do the latter without permission.)
Exactly. It's okay to record people who are in the park. It's very much not okay to record person(s) who are in the park.
Filming a particular statue or fountain that is surrounded by people milling about with them constantly stepping in and out of frame? Probably Okay. Just make sure it's obvious to everyone what you're doing.
Filming what an individual person does while milling about next to the fountain? Definitely Not Okay.
A wide shot of a group of people playing baseball in the park? Probably Okay.
A close-in shot of a single batter? Not Okay.
Nowadays I expect photographers to be aware of facial recognition software and to show some courtesy in minimizing the potential impacts of publishing a picture that anyone can be easily identified in.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:26 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Exactly. It's okay to record people who are in the park. It's very much not okay to record person(s) who are in the park.
Filming a particular statue or fountain that is surrounded by people milling about with them constantly stepping in and out of frame? Probably Okay. Just make sure it's obvious to everyone what you're doing.
Filming what an individual person does while milling about next to the fountain? Definitely Not Okay.
A wide shot of a group of people playing baseball in the park? Probably Okay.
A close-in shot of a single batter? Not Okay.
Nowadays I expect photographers to be aware of facial recognition software and to show some courtesy in minimizing the potential impacts of publishing a picture that anyone can be easily identified in.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:26 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
If something has a lot of gray areas it's better to stay away completely than get yourself into a mess. It's much safer, legally and ethically, to stage the footage you want, and have peoples' signed consent.
posted by bleep at 9:34 AM on February 17, 2022
posted by bleep at 9:34 AM on February 17, 2022
Best answer: I am also a photographer and occasionally I like taking street scenes. Over the years i have gotten much more sensitized about taking recognizable photos of passers by, so nowadays I make sure that nobody is recognizable. Think about it this way: when you're filming kids in a playground, it's not the kids images as themselves that you want, it's the impression of movement and light. Or, it's the shape of people in a cafe, not the people themselves. There are a thousand ways to accomplish this. Off the top of my head I can think of two - you can go all artsy and use an app like sketchcamera or Qnipaint to turn everyone into drawings, which has the benefit of looking really cool (this is how I photograph protests) or you can crop and edit in a way that emphasizes movement and de-emphasizes facial features. Think of it as a creative challenge.
posted by mygothlaundry at 9:45 AM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by mygothlaundry at 9:45 AM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
An approach that I think might allow for spontaneity and also permission: Take spontaneous footage without informing people ahead of time. If you take a shot that you think you might want to use in the final piece, approach those people and say something to the effect of "Hi, I'm filming here in the park for my music video - nothing famous, it's just a hobby of mine. Anyway, would it be OK if I used some footage of you in my video? If you'd like to see it when it is done, you can go to my YouTube page (tell them your page, or better, have cards or slips of paper with it printed)." Then you can continue filming them for a bit once they are aware of your presence. If you aren't able to ask permission for whatever reason (jogging too fast for you to catch up with or something) or they say no, don't include that footage. You may want to record notes to yourself within the footage to help keep things straight ("OK to use the woman with two children, not OK to use the guy in the red sweater").
posted by Rock Steady at 9:46 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Rock Steady at 9:46 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Oh, and delete whatever footage you haven't used once you are done editing the video.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:47 AM on February 17, 2022
posted by Rock Steady at 9:47 AM on February 17, 2022
Best answer: i am dumb but curious. google has a lot of results for "public photography guidelines". the consensus seems to be: it all depends on the 1st-4th amendment balance. generally, all 4th (expectation of privacy) are generally waived by everyone (and everyone's children) in a public place. there's a subsequent question of commercial vs expressive, but you seem safely outside that commercial prohibition.
Ethically...i think you're in the clear. clearly, a minority take.
Courtesy: I'd ask about close up shots.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:04 AM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
Ethically...i think you're in the clear. clearly, a minority take.
Courtesy: I'd ask about close up shots.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:04 AM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'd be a little more relaxed if everyone watching it would see it as "video of a park with people in it." I hate being photographed by anyone, let alone strangers, but if I'm walking through a park and am incidentally in a wide shot that includes lots of other people, I can live with it. I'm conceivably in lots of instagrams in the background of someone's touristy snapshot of them mugging for the camera, or snapping a historic street, so theoretically I'm all around the internet.
The second it's a picture of "a person in a park" I'd say that's not fair game. I'd be angry. Even if it's a brief zoom-in or tracking shot on a longer video. This is pretty similar to the "identifiable person" rule but presumably a little looser.
None of this is feedback on the legal issues.
posted by mark k at 10:16 AM on February 17, 2022
The second it's a picture of "a person in a park" I'd say that's not fair game. I'd be angry. Even if it's a brief zoom-in or tracking shot on a longer video. This is pretty similar to the "identifiable person" rule but presumably a little looser.
None of this is feedback on the legal issues.
posted by mark k at 10:16 AM on February 17, 2022
I, like someone above, have a stalker. I would be not just upset but incandescently furious if someone did this to me, and would not rest about it. I think it is definitely not ethical even if you are filming adults. Ask people for permission.
posted by corb at 10:37 AM on February 17, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:37 AM on February 17, 2022 [8 favorites]
An approach that I think might allow for spontaneity and also permission: Take spontaneous footage without informing people ahead of time. If you take a shot that you think you might want to use in the final piece, approach those people and say something to the effect of "Hi, I'm filming here in the park for my music video - nothing famous, it's just a hobby of mine. Anyway, would it be OK if I used some footage of you in my video? If you'd like to see it when it is done, you can go to my YouTube page (tell them your page, or better, have cards or slips of paper with it printed)."
Ok but people then have no idea if this is the only place the footage is being used. There’s still a major creep factor if you ask for permission after collecting footage.
posted by corey flood at 10:54 AM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Ok but people then have no idea if this is the only place the footage is being used. There’s still a major creep factor if you ask for permission after collecting footage.
posted by corey flood at 10:54 AM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
I used to work in a public library and we didn’t even let people take videos of their kid in story time and if we wanted to get a photo for library use we were obligated to get people to sign a waiver. Aside from the obvious issues raised above, there was no way for us to know if someone’s kid was in witness protection or had a relative who had kidnapped them before. While it may seem innocuous, posting videos of people and their kids can carry some serious risk, especially now with enhanced facial recognition systems. If you want spontaneity, get permission and then just don’t use footage from the first few minutes of filming. Most kids would get distracted by then and most parents would be interacting with their kid. Also I’m not sure where you are located but some states draw the line at video recording. Where I am it is legal to record audio without telling the recorded person but it is illegal to record video.
posted by donut_princess at 10:55 AM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by donut_princess at 10:55 AM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: so many great posts here, thank you. I adore John Wilson, but don't know whose permission he asks and whose he doesn't. The person who mentioned him says that he does ask permission when he interviews somebody, BUT I also think he has to ask permission to use video footage of people INSIDE (where there is the assumption of privacy), even if they are not being interviewed.
As for children, I don't really need children at all in this video, i just wanted them for a cross-section of people in the park. The song is about getting old so I wanted various ages and stages of life.
Certainly the consensus is not to use video of people without permission even if I'm not going to make any money; that putting the video on YouTube is a kind of commercial use in and of itself.
I LOVE the idea of those apps that turn video (or is it just still photos? I will look.) into drawings. That might be very interesting.
Another thing is that I could just use ME in the videos. ugh, me.
posted by DMelanogaster at 10:58 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
As for children, I don't really need children at all in this video, i just wanted them for a cross-section of people in the park. The song is about getting old so I wanted various ages and stages of life.
Certainly the consensus is not to use video of people without permission even if I'm not going to make any money; that putting the video on YouTube is a kind of commercial use in and of itself.
I LOVE the idea of those apps that turn video (or is it just still photos? I will look.) into drawings. That might be very interesting.
Another thing is that I could just use ME in the videos. ugh, me.
posted by DMelanogaster at 10:58 AM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Anecdote from someone who has dabbled in amateur photography: I used to go for walks and take lots of "arty" shots of inanimate objects, including architecture features.
A woman once came hurtling out of her house, screaming at me and threatening to call the cops because she thought I was taking creep-shots through the window. Fortunately for me I was much younger then and also female at the time, so as non-threatening as you can get just about. But even though I handed her my camera and let her look through my shots it was incredibly uncomfortable and quite frankly a little scary. She threatened to call the cops, with whom I've never had a decent interaction and I also just felt bad that I'd inadvertently frightened someone (who was black, and also female). I had to agree to stay away from her neighborhood to calm her down (and I absolutely avoided that street on foot after that).
Trust me, it's no fun to be in a situation like that.
I don't think it's immoral to film people, then ask them if you can use the footage, and delete it if the answer is no, but you'd have even more of a chance of someone getting upset if that's the route you go. Depends on your level of extroversion/risk I guess.
I'd be pissed if someone used a video or a photo of me anywhere online without permission, and this is even though I really dig and respect good street photography, and used to follow several photographers who did exclusively that. One photographer I liked shot a lot of his stuff from waist level, so people weren't aware necessarily that they were being photographed.
posted by liminal_shadows at 11:56 AM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
A woman once came hurtling out of her house, screaming at me and threatening to call the cops because she thought I was taking creep-shots through the window. Fortunately for me I was much younger then and also female at the time, so as non-threatening as you can get just about. But even though I handed her my camera and let her look through my shots it was incredibly uncomfortable and quite frankly a little scary. She threatened to call the cops, with whom I've never had a decent interaction and I also just felt bad that I'd inadvertently frightened someone (who was black, and also female). I had to agree to stay away from her neighborhood to calm her down (and I absolutely avoided that street on foot after that).
Trust me, it's no fun to be in a situation like that.
I don't think it's immoral to film people, then ask them if you can use the footage, and delete it if the answer is no, but you'd have even more of a chance of someone getting upset if that's the route you go. Depends on your level of extroversion/risk I guess.
I'd be pissed if someone used a video or a photo of me anywhere online without permission, and this is even though I really dig and respect good street photography, and used to follow several photographers who did exclusively that. One photographer I liked shot a lot of his stuff from waist level, so people weren't aware necessarily that they were being photographed.
posted by liminal_shadows at 11:56 AM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
Response by poster: Mchelly, I'm 71 years old and you make a great point. I was thinking of the candids of WeeGee, Cartier-Bresson, etc but yeah those photos (do people still say "photos"? I hear they say "albums" again) were seen by few people (hm maybe that's not true of news photos) but yeah, it was a different world.
posted by DMelanogaster at 12:21 PM on February 17, 2022
posted by DMelanogaster at 12:21 PM on February 17, 2022
I used to work in public parks. If I had seen you doing this, I would have:
1) Asked you if you had a filming permit
2) If you didn’t, I’d have called the park police, who would have called the real-ass police, or I might well have called the police directly if you were filming a crowd with children.
If I had not followed that course of action my job would have been at risk. We left the people obviously filming an individual they knew (instagram models etc.) alone, or like, filming birds, but filming a crowd? Hell no. You can expect park staff to hassle you and some uncomfortable conversations with law enforcement at least.
posted by pickingupsticks at 12:25 PM on February 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
1) Asked you if you had a filming permit
2) If you didn’t, I’d have called the park police, who would have called the real-ass police, or I might well have called the police directly if you were filming a crowd with children.
If I had not followed that course of action my job would have been at risk. We left the people obviously filming an individual they knew (instagram models etc.) alone, or like, filming birds, but filming a crowd? Hell no. You can expect park staff to hassle you and some uncomfortable conversations with law enforcement at least.
posted by pickingupsticks at 12:25 PM on February 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
Best answer: Asked you if you had a filming permit
At least at the national level, permit requirements for any form of video taping are unconstitutional, and there are no requirements for video taping permits being enforced right now.
posted by saeculorum at 12:54 PM on February 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
At least at the national level, permit requirements for any form of video taping are unconstitutional, and there are no requirements for video taping permits being enforced right now.
posted by saeculorum at 12:54 PM on February 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: But people are walking around taking photos and videos with their phones EVERY SECOND. Y'know?? I was just at my local park, beautiful weather, and this is a Thing, and aren't a lot of those going on their IG pages?
posted by DMelanogaster at 1:14 PM on February 17, 2022
posted by DMelanogaster at 1:14 PM on February 17, 2022
no, it's NOT "ethically" ok to annoy people for your own ends. You're hurting people by making them feel threatened and uncomfortable. You are taking away their ability to enjoy time outside without having to deal with you, investigate you, avoid you. And if you're invading their privacy by filming them and posting their image without their knowledge, that's worse.
You know the difference between people taking pictures of themselves and their companions for their own IGs, and someone (you) taking pictures of OTHER people for YOUR IG. Stop being obtuse. Take as many pics of yourself as you want, and leave strangers alone.
posted by fingersandtoes at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
You know the difference between people taking pictures of themselves and their companions for their own IGs, and someone (you) taking pictures of OTHER people for YOUR IG. Stop being obtuse. Take as many pics of yourself as you want, and leave strangers alone.
posted by fingersandtoes at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
I think, per your latest update, you know it's wrong. Judging by how you're engaging and favoriting, you want someone to tell you it's not wrong, which is what you were hoping that famously sympathetic MeFi would give you, but it is absolutely morally wrong, so you're not getting that.
It doesn't matter what other people are doing, and it doesn't matter if other people are photographing trees and accidentally get a part of another human in the shot. That is not what you are trying to do. You are trying to take pictures of other people for use in your music videos.
It doesn't matter what social mores were acceptable back when photographs required development on film. Mores and ethics have changed now that photographs can go across the world in a minute. Act accordingly.
posted by corb at 1:25 PM on February 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
It doesn't matter what other people are doing, and it doesn't matter if other people are photographing trees and accidentally get a part of another human in the shot. That is not what you are trying to do. You are trying to take pictures of other people for use in your music videos.
It doesn't matter what social mores were acceptable back when photographs required development on film. Mores and ethics have changed now that photographs can go across the world in a minute. Act accordingly.
posted by corb at 1:25 PM on February 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
To me, the intent actually matters a lot here (ethics-wise, can't speak to the legal at all). If you're filming two actor friends having a dialogue in the park, and someone walks behind them, personally I don't really find that too problematic even if they're identifiable (although I know others may heartily disagree). However, expressly filming people as your content without telling them is creepy and violating.
posted by dusty potato at 1:26 PM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 1:26 PM on February 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
Gently, your last comment feels a bit along the lines of, “But other people don’t care about ethics! Why do I have to?”
From the legal side, it looks like you don’t. But what is the ultimate point of the video you want to make? Do you want it to connect you to other people, or to potentially distance them from you? Is taking B-roll without asking really worth the potential harm of people feeling surveilled, invaded, especially if there are other options (asking the local tai-chi group or skate crew if you could film - potentially paying for it, asking friends if they would be willing to hold a big intergenerational potluck at the playground, etc.)?
I love street photography, too, but I feel a little sad now when I think about Garry Winogrand’s Women, who are HIS in those photos. The intense connection I feel when I watch Paris Is Burning is tempered by having learned, much later, how many people who participated felt used and excluded by Jennie Livingston after it came out. I feel both deep joy/connection and pain/separateness when I watch John Wilson - he almost-always seems to be trying to engender empathy, but there are times when he shows people in moments that could be deeply hurtful or humiliating, and that’s hard to watch.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 1:32 PM on February 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
From the legal side, it looks like you don’t. But what is the ultimate point of the video you want to make? Do you want it to connect you to other people, or to potentially distance them from you? Is taking B-roll without asking really worth the potential harm of people feeling surveilled, invaded, especially if there are other options (asking the local tai-chi group or skate crew if you could film - potentially paying for it, asking friends if they would be willing to hold a big intergenerational potluck at the playground, etc.)?
I love street photography, too, but I feel a little sad now when I think about Garry Winogrand’s Women, who are HIS in those photos. The intense connection I feel when I watch Paris Is Burning is tempered by having learned, much later, how many people who participated felt used and excluded by Jennie Livingston after it came out. I feel both deep joy/connection and pain/separateness when I watch John Wilson - he almost-always seems to be trying to engender empathy, but there are times when he shows people in moments that could be deeply hurtful or humiliating, and that’s hard to watch.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 1:32 PM on February 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
But people are walking around taking photos and videos with their phones EVERY SECOND. Y'know?? I was just at my local park, beautiful weather, and this is a Thing, and aren't a lot of those going on their IG pages?
Again, I really don't think this is a thing the way you think it is. On public transit and in parks, I see groups of people taking pictures of nature, themselves, or one another.
Maybe think of letting people take pictures of you as kind of like letting them start video calls with you. It's pretty common for a group of coworkers, students, family members, or friends to video call together. Some people find video calls excruciatingly unpleasant, for whatever reasons, so it's good to check and ask before inviting someone to that sort of thing.
As far as I know, there's no particular legal restrictions on starting a video call with anybody, so it wouldn't necessarily be a criminal act for you to get ahold of a lot of school childrens' Zoom/Teams/Meet/etc. addresses and start sending them requests to video call.
Suppose you wanted to record children moving around in their homes to make your gross goddamned music videos. Those video calls would be an effective way to collect that data for your personal benefit - and you'd be prioritizing how you felt about those kids' images, voices, and bodies over their boundaries and their families' boundaries.
It would not be ethical, at all, no matter how many video calls those kids had been in with their music class teachers, their friends, or their cousins. It would be wildly socially inappropriate and really creepy.
People don't have video call addresses for strangers to call them and try to make art from their behavior any more than people spend time outside in parks so strangers can make art out of that.
Leave them the FUCK alone.
posted by All Might Be Well at 1:40 PM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Again, I really don't think this is a thing the way you think it is. On public transit and in parks, I see groups of people taking pictures of nature, themselves, or one another.
Maybe think of letting people take pictures of you as kind of like letting them start video calls with you. It's pretty common for a group of coworkers, students, family members, or friends to video call together. Some people find video calls excruciatingly unpleasant, for whatever reasons, so it's good to check and ask before inviting someone to that sort of thing.
As far as I know, there's no particular legal restrictions on starting a video call with anybody, so it wouldn't necessarily be a criminal act for you to get ahold of a lot of school childrens' Zoom/Teams/Meet/etc. addresses and start sending them requests to video call.
Suppose you wanted to record children moving around in their homes to make your gross goddamned music videos. Those video calls would be an effective way to collect that data for your personal benefit - and you'd be prioritizing how you felt about those kids' images, voices, and bodies over their boundaries and their families' boundaries.
It would not be ethical, at all, no matter how many video calls those kids had been in with their music class teachers, their friends, or their cousins. It would be wildly socially inappropriate and really creepy.
People don't have video call addresses for strangers to call them and try to make art from their behavior any more than people spend time outside in parks so strangers can make art out of that.
Leave them the FUCK alone.
posted by All Might Be Well at 1:40 PM on February 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Interesting about Paris Is Burning. I knew the editor of that film very well. I'd ask him how he feels about that now, but he's dead. Anyway, all excellent points about change, etc.
As for corb's "you were hoping that famously sympathetic MeFi would give you" -- nope. Just the opposite. I think of AskMeFi participants as rather primly moralistic (characteristic of certain younger societal strata, compared to my own "60's" point of view), and that's mostly (but not entirely) what I've been getting. And that is what I wanted, and why I was pushing it -- I wanted to hear the most extreme point of view, from which I could then formulate my own approach.
So thanks!
posted by DMelanogaster at 1:42 PM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
As for corb's "you were hoping that famously sympathetic MeFi would give you" -- nope. Just the opposite. I think of AskMeFi participants as rather primly moralistic (characteristic of certain younger societal strata, compared to my own "60's" point of view), and that's mostly (but not entirely) what I've been getting. And that is what I wanted, and why I was pushing it -- I wanted to hear the most extreme point of view, from which I could then formulate my own approach.
So thanks!
posted by DMelanogaster at 1:42 PM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
ugh, me
Exactly! I don't want to be in your video any more than you do.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2022 [25 favorites]
Exactly! I don't want to be in your video any more than you do.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2022 [25 favorites]
The highest ethical good is to simply get people's permission.
Another way to go about it would be to have an early morning or golden hour meet up in your park. If you explain your project and put it on your local community's NextDoor or Facebook page or whatever, you might be surprised at how supportive people are. I've shot quite a bit of video and stills that way. I think your concern that people won't be "natural" enough is probably not as big an issue as you think.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:46 PM on February 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
Another way to go about it would be to have an early morning or golden hour meet up in your park. If you explain your project and put it on your local community's NextDoor or Facebook page or whatever, you might be surprised at how supportive people are. I've shot quite a bit of video and stills that way. I think your concern that people won't be "natural" enough is probably not as big an issue as you think.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:46 PM on February 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
The response to this is very interesting to me! I generally assume that if I'm out in a public park that there's a decent chance I may end up in someone's photos or video, and I definitely filmed people in public places as a student for film class without thinking twice about it. Not for anything commercial, but ethically I wouldn't consider uploading to a small Youtube channel to be inherently commercial - legally though I have no idea haha.
On a similar note to warriorqueen, my idea would be to maybe reach out to any activity or sports groups that meet in the park - I would illogically probably be creeped out more to be randomly approached by a stranger asking me to fill out a model release than being filmed without permission, but "There will be someone filming for a music video at this meetup, here's the forms for permission if you don't mind being filmed" would seem fine to me. Plus if everyone is already there for their own purpose instead of specifically to be filmed, I think your footage will still be candid and natural.
posted by limnerent at 2:26 PM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
On a similar note to warriorqueen, my idea would be to maybe reach out to any activity or sports groups that meet in the park - I would illogically probably be creeped out more to be randomly approached by a stranger asking me to fill out a model release than being filmed without permission, but "There will be someone filming for a music video at this meetup, here's the forms for permission if you don't mind being filmed" would seem fine to me. Plus if everyone is already there for their own purpose instead of specifically to be filmed, I think your footage will still be candid and natural.
posted by limnerent at 2:26 PM on February 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
There's a world of difference between accidentally catching people in the background of your candid or even posed photos or videos in public, and going somewhere with the specific intention of filming any people and kids especially. The behavior of these two activities is obvious enough to be noticeable. Even though I have a stalker I would not mind if I happened to be in the background of a photograph or video when I was in public. That wouldn't make me uncomfortable. But noticing that I was being filmed by a stranger? That would really set off my radar. And if I saw that you were filming kids that were under my care? Just a world of difference between "the kid I'm watching was just maybe in the background of someone's candid video" and "someone is taking photos and video of the kid I'm looking after."
posted by twelve cent archie at 3:03 PM on February 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by twelve cent archie at 3:03 PM on February 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
To respond specifically on the permit issue: my state, as I understand it, allows filming everywhere in public (and one should presume that when in public one may be being filmed). However, counties and individual locations have every right to charge for the use of their public areas for commercial filming (as that park did).
If there are legal challenges to that status quo, I’m sure that changes the game.
Certainly there’s a gray area where well-dressed individuals taking video of one another may be gaining financially from modeling and wouldn’t be asked for a permit, whereas film crews working in a prominent area would be. Low-level employees typically make judgment calls about those gray situations. One situation where they’ll likely intervene is if a given activity is likely to alarm other park visitors.
posted by pickingupsticks at 4:53 PM on February 17, 2022
If there are legal challenges to that status quo, I’m sure that changes the game.
Certainly there’s a gray area where well-dressed individuals taking video of one another may be gaining financially from modeling and wouldn’t be asked for a permit, whereas film crews working in a prominent area would be. Low-level employees typically make judgment calls about those gray situations. One situation where they’ll likely intervene is if a given activity is likely to alarm other park visitors.
posted by pickingupsticks at 4:53 PM on February 17, 2022
Best answer: I'm ok being in the minority, fwiw. I'm surprised at the outrage. street photography is a thing. do what's right for you. cheers - j_
posted by j_curiouser at 6:52 PM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 6:52 PM on February 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
I think this is totally fine, to be frank! You can’t predict how people are going to feel about this. I was once at an event and didn’t know I was being filmed. Three years later the footage found its way onto MTV and someone asked if it was me a few weeks later. I was totally shocked, I recorded the next broadcast and sure enough it was me. Kinda weird because I think they made some $$$ but also a cool story. I was legally a minor, I guess.
Personally I think your approach is ethically fine, but that’s just me, I guess. I often feel that way reading MetaFilter, though, and FWIW I’m in my 20s. People filming an honest piece of art is damnable but we do seem to treat the thousands of surveillance cameras literally tracking our every move not to mention encroaching all-powerful facial recognition systems as inevitable? Kinda mind-boggling!
posted by vocativecase at 9:14 AM on February 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Personally I think your approach is ethically fine, but that’s just me, I guess. I often feel that way reading MetaFilter, though, and FWIW I’m in my 20s. People filming an honest piece of art is damnable but we do seem to treat the thousands of surveillance cameras literally tracking our every move not to mention encroaching all-powerful facial recognition systems as inevitable? Kinda mind-boggling!
posted by vocativecase at 9:14 AM on February 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Not direct answer - but you could also use stock video from a legit source.
posted by davidmsc at 10:36 AM on February 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by davidmsc at 10:36 AM on February 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's legal, maybe it's ethical, but if people don't like what you're doing, don't be surprised if they respond with technically legal, technically ethical behavior that you will nonetheless find disconcerting.
When a stranger is clearly taking my photo, I usually respond by taking their photo, and most of the time they don't seem to like it.
posted by grouse at 11:02 AM on February 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
When a stranger is clearly taking my photo, I usually respond by taking their photo, and most of the time they don't seem to like it.
posted by grouse at 11:02 AM on February 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'll admit it. I am a street photographer, primarily for my own art, but also sold for use for journalism purposes (completely legal).
I do this around the world. Outside the US, I have never found anyone to mind at all (actually, they tend to love it when they notice). In the US, I tread more carefully because a number of people on threads like this clearly find it appalling (no idea if is a majority, but I don't really think so). I definitely avoid intentionally taking recognizable pictures of children in the US, not because I think it is immoral, but because people react in the ways I am seeing on this thread.
I have personally only seen negative reaction in online forums and never from anyone I've taken photos of. If someone asked me to delete one, I would do it immediately.
This all makes me very sad. I enjoy being able to create images that convey moments that reflect people and communities.
People are being tracked in a million ways in our society. Why is this the one people react to so strongly?
I simply don't agree that my photos taken in public places are a violation.
posted by quiet wanderer at 11:32 AM on February 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
I do this around the world. Outside the US, I have never found anyone to mind at all (actually, they tend to love it when they notice). In the US, I tread more carefully because a number of people on threads like this clearly find it appalling (no idea if is a majority, but I don't really think so). I definitely avoid intentionally taking recognizable pictures of children in the US, not because I think it is immoral, but because people react in the ways I am seeing on this thread.
I have personally only seen negative reaction in online forums and never from anyone I've taken photos of. If someone asked me to delete one, I would do it immediately.
This all makes me very sad. I enjoy being able to create images that convey moments that reflect people and communities.
People are being tracked in a million ways in our society. Why is this the one people react to so strongly?
I simply don't agree that my photos taken in public places are a violation.
posted by quiet wanderer at 11:32 AM on February 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
Also, yes, I have kids, and yes, we have been photographed many, many times by strangers (generally in places where white people are unusual). I'm fine with it.
posted by quiet wanderer at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2022
posted by quiet wanderer at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2022
One thing to consider is that automated face recognition has improved vastly over the last decade, alongside other machine-learning uses and data analysis. It’s no longer just about what if someone (human) recognizes you in a picture or video. It’s tracking, joining of different sources of information, inferences, etc. Laws and social norms have not caught up yet with this technological development (though there is a proposal for AI regulation in the EU that explicitly forbids real-time biometric monitoring, for example).
posted by meijusa at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by meijusa at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
One more thing to add---selling photos as art is not considered commercial and is considered legal without a model release AFAIK. I have no idea whether YouTube counts as commercial though, since they use ads.
posted by quiet wanderer at 11:45 AM on February 18, 2022
posted by quiet wanderer at 11:45 AM on February 18, 2022
Regarding the claims that "people outside the US don't mind", I follow several "walk with me through [location]" channels on YouTube, none of them from the US. Most of them go to the effort to blur out the faces of the people they happen to pass and capture on camera.
posted by Lexica at 2:10 PM on February 18, 2022
posted by Lexica at 2:10 PM on February 18, 2022
People are being tracked in a million ways in our society. Why is this the one people react to so strongly?
This probably depends entirely on situation, such as people having stalkers, which has been covered in here. You have no idea if that random woman walking by you or not's life is at risk because you wanted to do some video.
Some people don't care. Some people really do care. Some folks don't mind getting filmed walking down the street but object to being filmed while hot, sweaty and working out in a zumba class (I kind of objected to this myself, for that reason). You just don't know who's okay/safe to be on camera or not unless you ask.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:37 PM on February 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
This probably depends entirely on situation, such as people having stalkers, which has been covered in here. You have no idea if that random woman walking by you or not's life is at risk because you wanted to do some video.
Some people don't care. Some people really do care. Some folks don't mind getting filmed walking down the street but object to being filmed while hot, sweaty and working out in a zumba class (I kind of objected to this myself, for that reason). You just don't know who's okay/safe to be on camera or not unless you ask.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:37 PM on February 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
answer: I'm ok being in the minority, fwiw. I'm surprised at the outrage. street photography is a thing.
This isn’t street photography in the usual sense. This is videoing people without their consent, with the intention of using their images in a music video. Music videos are as much, or more, like a commercial for the musician as they are art. What OP is planning is akin to a business shooting people without their consent and using their images in a commercial.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:01 AM on February 19, 2022 [3 favorites]
This isn’t street photography in the usual sense. This is videoing people without their consent, with the intention of using their images in a music video. Music videos are as much, or more, like a commercial for the musician as they are art. What OP is planning is akin to a business shooting people without their consent and using their images in a commercial.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:01 AM on February 19, 2022 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Imagine the various possible pathways that a conversation beginning with "hey, are you taking a video of me / my kid right now??" could go down; in which of those does the person doing the video have the moral high ground?
posted by twigatwig at 7:08 AM on February 17, 2022 [22 favorites]