The question, in broad terms, is this: a ) is it illegal, unethical, or in poor taste to take photos of people in public places and b) to then use them in one’s blog?
The background: The Captain and I were in our local paneficio this morning, and there was an awfully cute little girl there… so of course I took her picture. Then I got to thinking it would be fun to take some pictures of the crowded shop, because one of these days I want to start writing about some of the Best Places to Buy in Rapallo. So I wandered around looking for a good shot, which in any event I couldn’t find.
Just about then I realized there was a lot of loud talking going on – it’s still an effort for me to concentrate and understand Italian, so I tend to tune out a lot of it. Anyway, it turned out a woman in the shop took exception to my taking photos of anyone or anything in the shop on the grounds that it was a violation of privacy. The Captain weighed in on my behalf (my hero!) as did another patron, an elderly woman; everyone else just shuffled around and smiled.
I hastily assured the woman that she was not in any of my photos and if she had been I would erase them, but she opined it was a violation of everyone’s privacy. I couldn’t tell where the padrona fell in the discourse; she mentioned ‘publiccita’ – I’ll apologize to her at a quieter time and ask if I can photograph the shop for this blog.
Usually when I’m taking a ‘portrait’ of anyone I ask first (but not always), and I’ve never been turned down. So this was rather a surprise, but it got me thinking. (I’ve begun a long-term project, working title ‘Beauty in Italy’ – a lot of it depends on anonymous shooting.) Are there guidelines out there somewhere?
A quick noodle via Google has not been overly helpful with this issue. I would really value hearing your comments, counsel or just your reactions. Thanks!
An Ex-Expatriate 
I can add only two brief thoughts to all the pondering and wise words above. In a hospital, any picture of a patient or even a non-identifying wound must have the express permission of the patient in writing. These days it is not fashionable to be ill, and certainly not legal to spread the news of another’s illness due to the arcane workings of HIPAA, the Healthcare Insurance Portability and Privacy Act, which has taken common sense regarding privacy to to a ludicrous and litigious extreme.
Hospital joke:
“Knock knock.”
“Who’s there?
“HIPAA”
“HIPAA who?”
“I’m sorry, I can’t tell you that.”
Other than that, the only other thing that springs to mind is use of the image of another to make money through public distribution, which seems to be an issue for legitimate photographers but not for paparazzi.
Personally, I think your troublesome woman is probably in the Witness Protection Program.
Ah, Sherri, now you’re on to a different aspect of the question, which equates ‘intrusive’ with ‘unflattering.’ hmmmm. I’ll stick with what I said – we see more of the ‘truth’ in a photo if the subject is unaware it’s being taken. If you’ve got spinach in your teeth or are wearing paint-spattered old britches it doesn’t make you less beautiful – it makes you a more-faceted human being than someone who is always ‘perfect,’ whatever that might be.
Your mention of the cell phone cameras is especially interesting and apropos. It’s at, I think, my sister’s Y where cell phones are prohibited for just this reason – not because it’s irritating to listen to someone make his/her plans for the next little while (it is, it is!) but because the temptation to snap someone in the altogether might prove too great.
Great comment – thanks!
Your blog question about privacy is an interesting one and deserves answering. Today, with the advent of ubiquitous cell phone cameras, one’s expectation of privacy must be limited. We can assume that someone somewhere has the ability to take our photograph. Having said that, I (she says speaking personally) have zero interest in – and would be upset at – seeing pictures of me taken while in a state of partial dress at a health club, eating a spinach salad with bits of green stuck between my teeth or bending over the fruit stand to ascertain ripeness of the Farmers’ Market melon. All intrusive and unflattering photographs would be most unwelcome.
NB: I firmly believe that we have too many nonsense laws and not enough make-sense laws; especialy the needed one forbidding photographs of any woman of “une certaine age” from behind without her express, written, notarized and blood-stamped permission.
How does the woman who was offended by your photograph in the (public) shop square your behavior with the paparazzi photographing some movie star in her (private) bedroom with a gazillion-power, 24″ prying lens from another zipcode? Interesting point to ponder …………
I think it comes down to “expectation of privacy” which we foresake when we enter the public arena. I fully expect complete privacy in my own home. Whether coming into the kitchen, with uncombed morning, hair blindly seeking some coffee or lying abed with reddened nose swollen from a roaring cold, I would not expect my person to be filmed.
NB: Steve is forever cautioning me that wandering around en deshabille is not advisable with our Open Window policy and that having curtains – or a clear understanding of the power of telescopic equipment – would be a good idea.
NEVERTHELESS, when I run to the local grocery store in paint-spattered, sweaty old britches because I forgot to buy milk (or gin or whatever) I can and do expect to meet the snootiest, most correct person I know who is always dressed for (her own) burial, and spying my sorry state, will shriek “Oh, let’s get a picture together. You look so, errrr, ummmm, c-a-s-u-a-l, tee-he-he-he-he”. I can only grit my teeth and blame myself because I should know better; know that by entering the public domain that I become public and forsake my right to my own privacy.
What you do, asking permission, is both gracious and smart. If someone is on-the-lam, with the neighbor’s spouse or otherwise engaged in behavior they do not want recorded, they can decline and you’ll go on your way. Innocent photographs do not, normally, bother people going about their daily lives in a usual manner and thousands of coffee table photography books attest to this.
Enrico, you’re right of course. Common sense is the best course. I looked at the website you sent, but as you guessed, the Italian was daunting for me.
I did find an illuminating article (legal-rights-of-photographers.pdf) which gives excellent ground rules – for the USA! There it is not illegal to take or publish pictures, but one may find oneself in a civil lawsuit if one a) engages in unreasonable intrusion into another’s life b) unreasonably reveals private facts about a person’s life c) unreasonably places a person in a ‘false light’ – usually done with accompanying text, and d) misappropriates another’s name or likeness.
Of course that’s in America – doesn’t mean beans here in Italy — so best to stick to the ‘common sense’ dictum and ask… maybe.
As to feeling uncomfortable with one’s likeness on the web — how would we ever know if someone put our photo out there??
Nanette – You’re absolutely correct, cultural context is everything. Italy is so western that it’s easy to make the mistake of transferring American cultural values here. In Morocco I think I’d hide in a burka and have a camera hidden in a corsage ;-). I joke, but your point is serious and well founded.
Cathy, the scene wasn’t really unpleasant, more interesting, at least for me. It may have been unpleasant for the perturbed woman, and perhaps for the padrona… it’s made me a little shy with the camera, though, that’s for sure! It’s a classic case of one culture banging into another. I didn’t know about iTunes U – I learn so much from you!
Louis – I love knowing that there is no Italian word for ‘privacy’ – and yes, I agree it is a bit overdone sometimes. I agree that technology has stressed a lot of our former notions of ‘comportamento’, both here and in the US. You’re absolutely right – so many of the greatest photos ever taken would not have been taken had official permission been required. Spontaneity is half the battle in taking a person’s picture. Ask for permission and that is gone (see the pic of Chicco and Anna in Tour del Gelato, for instance) – we learn much more about humanity when humanity doesn’t know we’re watching.
Pidge, you’re definitely on to something with your observation about comments accompanying photos; that speaks to c) above. My Italian Beauty project is meant to be only photos, without any captions. But now I’m not so sure it’s a good idea… but I’ll probably do it anyway, heh, heh, heh. Certainly in the US I could publish without comments, but I don’t know about here… yet.
I think Louis’ comment about art forms is right on. But I wonder if having comments in print makes a difference? I’m wondering if a blog essentially comments on the image – it doesn’t simply present it to the viewer for independent response?
And – having taught in public schools I’d be extremely careful about publishing pictures of children that offer context (place, etc.) without parental permission. Check out: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf
How sad! Surely this is not simply a US issue?
If our butterfly were simply publishing a book of images, I suspect she might photograph any and everyone without permission (but I’m not sure) – but her words create context.
This is fascinating to think about!
What is the difference between being seen “in person” and being seen in an image?
I suspect only context. And that for me becomes the issue. A blog has a published point of view that reaches many people/minds – it can be an instrument of persuasion (for an opposite opinion than that help by the person in the image); being seen in person is dependent on a single viewers perspective and often remains a singular response (unless of course like me you like to make snide comments about the folks around you!). I’d ask if I were photographing individuals and just go for it in crowd scenes!
Guess what the word for privacy is in Italian. “Privacy.” That’s right, the word is taken from the English. Now, maybe that tells us something. Such as, as a specific idea it has a short history in Italy. My feeling is that there has always been an innate concept of what we call privacy and it comes under the heading of comportamento (behavior) in Italy. For example, one does not enter the house of someone one does not know well without asking permission, though the door be opened to him. Is it possible that with the invasiveness of technology these days, the Italians needed an expansion of the idea and, as with many other things, the word “privacy” had a cachet, a prestige, that is attractive. And, is it possible that as a new idea with a cool name it has been taken up with too much vigor and gone into areas of absurdity? An example: At my golf club, if one who is not a member or otherwise connected to the club makes a reservation to play, that person’s name cannot be disclosed. So, I’ve engaged in tournament foursomes with three other players each named “Privacy.”
Maybe as another example I can cite the woman who made a scene because Farfalle1 took her photo. (Yet, did not she exhibit bad behavior by raising a ruckus rather than coming up to Farfalle1 and saying she did not wish to be photographed?) I feel that this woman has latched onto the new idea of “privacy” and has decided to run with it.
One final point: An over-involvement with the idea can still artistic expression. How many famous photos, even paintings, parts of films, had the acquiescence of everyone depicted? Where will we be if such is required? How will Farfalle1 be able to expose what life is like here if she can use only approved photos?
Louis
This is what, in common parlance, is called a pickle. I don’t think there are any hard and fast rules until someone enforces them. For example, at Duke, because we are an institution, we cannot take any picture of any event without signatures of everyone in the photograph. Since we videotape everything now for iTunes U, we put a document on the door of any event saying everyone within will be photographed but, if they do not wish to be, they need to sit behind the camera in an area where the camera can’t see. Now, strangers: in the past, no one got permission. Now, I’m not sure. And I have no idea if Italian law and custom are different. I would say it would be useful to ask a professional photographer about custom, problems in publishing photos and so forth, and, if you are really serious, ask a lawyer. Do I publish photos with unidentified subjects in them on my blog? All the time! As I said, it is a pickle. But it wounds like it was a pretty awful scene. And I know there is wide cultural variance . . .
I actually don’t know, but I can’t imagine that crowd scenes could be problematic, but photos focusing on individuals might be. I know that in some countries, eg morocco, you absolutely have to ask first, and you’re very often denied
Hi, nice blog!
I found a link, but its in Italian
http://www.bbcsite.com/faq/detail_251.aspx
The gist of it is that there is a Privacy Law, but there are no clear guidelines about pictures and the Internet. There is also another law concerning “diritto d’immagine” (Public image rights). So, common sense is in order. If you take pictures of people attending public events, eg a concert, or the fiera paesana, you generally don’t have to ask for their permission; on the other hand, if you take a picture of a man attending a demonstration, holding the flag of a political party, that’s another story. As far as I’m concerned, I would feel a little unconfortable seeing my face on the internet and not knowing who did it, but I think if you ask first, very few will say no.