In Discussion: Photography and The Law

What are the Morals and Ethics?

Reading on the infamous photography legal case between renowned photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia and Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew it raised question on the morals and ethics of reproducing images, photographing the public and who should own the copyright. Read more on the case here [1].

Philip-Lorca diCorcia's photo of Nussenzweig from his portraiture series 'Heads' (2001)

Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dicorcia.jpg

After acknowledging various viewpoints I have come to agree with the consensus that the photographer has the right to take pictures in a public place and photograph people unknowingly. In Philip-Lorca diCorcia's case, I agree with the New York State Supreme Court's ruling in his favour.

In today's surveillance society everyone is subjected to being watched, by who, we are not knowing; in a sense we are continuously being photographed, frame by frame. A student from my photography course, Rebecca Sharplin-Hughes, states 'The only difference about having your photograph taken is that the photographer has the right to do whatever they please with the photograph, this may mean that a photograph of you is published for all of the public to see,' .

Technology and accessibility have allowed practically anyone to own a device that can take a picture such as a phone camera, DSLR, compact camera and many more. In today's globalized world social networking is particularly prominent today; so an innocent photograph of the street which can capture many people's faces and then published online can be viewed by hundreds and more. This can be seen as a violation of privacy as the people in the photograph have not consented yet this is not necessarily frowned upon or unethical as such yet the viewership can be considerably higher than if a photograph was published in an gallery for example.

If someone, a photographer per se, decides to take this street photography further and to make a 'professional' body of work and publish unsuspecting people of the public in art galleries etc. it is seen as an invasion of privacy. I can relate this issue to instances such as wanting to take a 'professional' DSLR to a concert which I am not allowed purely down to the fact it looks 'snazzier' but compact cameras are accepted yet the function and act of taking a photograph is exactly the same. So in many cases many people see that if a photograph is 'professionally' being taken it can be more unethical but if it's done in an amateur manner it isn't. For example, if a professional photographer used a tripod & camera in the street one may seem more uneasy however an amateur tourist snapping pictures, one wouldn't seem so suspecting. The issue of taking photographs in public can come down to the professional instance however questions such as 'what is professionally taking a photograph' are debatable.

I found this statement interesting by fellow colleague, Sarina Langer's: 'Richard Billingham said that all photography is exploitative, and that all we can do is make the photograph so artistically good that this becomes relatively irrelevant.' I agree with the fact that taking photos in public is fair, but when forcing yourself onto someone's property/land is not only unlawful by trespassing but morally wrong. 

Overall I don't believe in intruding someone's space (in which Philip Lorca diCorica did not do as he used a powerful telephoto lens) is morally right, especially someone's home, however in public people should have the freedom to take photographs and publish them with respect. Then again this raises questions such as 'what is respectable?'.

References:

1. Wikipedia - Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Useful Links:

Tate Modern - Exposed: Philip-Lorca DiCorcia http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/video/exposed-philip-lorca-dicorcia

In Discussion: Is Digital Photography Devaluing the Photograph?

There has been a long-lasting debate over digital photography vs. analogue and where photographers all over the world are arguing each side. After reading an interview by James Weston discussing Ricky Adam's new book; 'Destroying Everything' points were raised on the role of post-production. See full interview here [1]. There are various factors to consider in this debate such as photographers shooting style, image quality, cost & efficiency, accessibility, manipulation capabilities, archiving, credibility, processing effects etc. which photographers take into account when shooting an image. Thus there are pros and cons of each.

Many photographers use film for its nostalgic quality however increasingly the younger generation are picking up this traditional mode and embracing the processes involved. Many regard film as being outdated though it is one of the first things one learns on a Photography course: the darkroom. Ricky Adam states 'You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film. For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting' For this reason we (photography students) are taught the importance of composition which someone doesn't seem as important in digital photography where we have the luxury of shooting many images stored on a small memory card. Especially when I was shooting on medium format film I had the added pressure of getting the 'right' shot in 10 frames meaning I carefully thought of how I created my images. Though the downfall of this is that it is difficult to experiment with ideas and adjusting lighting when you cannot see the image instantly (except Polaroid style cameras) whilst on a budget (film is expensive to buy as it isn't as in demand).

Though the digital camera is superior for image quality with incredibly advanced technology such as the Hasselblad's 200-megapixel camera [2] many pro photographers, especially in the commercial market opt for digital. The ease of transferring and uploading files quickly through the internet and having the ability to manipulate the images is favourable especially in a 'perfection' obsessed society. The 'flaws' such as grain noise, colour leaks usually found in film do not fit with non-blemished image of today.

Despite this I am firm user in Photoshop and admittedly have airbrushed and retouched both digital and scanned film images in what I believe is enhancing the image. Below are 2 photographs, one before post-production, the other after. The original image is a 120mm colour negative that I scanned in. I believe that without digital advancements and availability I would not be able to produce an image I was satisfied with.

(From my Hollie Beauty Shoot, 22/02/12, using a Mamiya RB67)

In some aspects images are a portrayal of something/someone and never the true likeness; how can one capture the 'truth' in a photograph when it is only two dimensional? Therefore digital photo-manipulation does not devalue the photograph but is a means to reach the photographer's intentions for the image. Film photography does not possess the technical capabilities unlike digital photography. It all really depends on what the photographer wants to achieve and the necessary means, either digital or film, to reach that. The question is not which is better as I believe they are equally powerful mediums in their own right.

References:

1. DigBMX.com - Ricky Adam: Destroying Everything http://digbmx.mpora.com/photo-ops/ricky-adam-destroying-everything/ [Accessed 16/05/12]

2. Hassleblad 200 mpx camera: $45,000 http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20066021-264.html [Accessed 16/05/12]

Useful Links:

Wikipedia - Digital versus film photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

Kenrockwell.com - Film vs. Digital http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Beauty In Discussion: What you Think is Beautiful

One module for my Photography degree includes Representation where we have to create a portrait on medium format colour film. I was quite excited about this project as I love portraiture and found printing in the colour darkrooms both rewarding and challenging. For this project I was struggling to find what to base my theme on but after looking at street style and fashion and engaging in the discussion on Orlan and Katie Price I was inspired by the concept of beauty and what we determine is beautiful.

Barbie: The beauty icon

Image Source: http://collider.com/barbie-movie-in-production-because-girls-deserve-brainless-toy-based-features-too/8107/

I began researching the relationship between race and beauty and why it is still uncommon to see dark skinned models on the runway and billboards for example. Being dark skinned myself looking into this idea made me see myself in a different light and made me realize I was beautiful too, with my curves and Bengali ethnicity. I was appalled to see the media especially advertising encouraging lightening skin products and this is a billion dollar industry in Asia and Africa. This advert in particular made me want to shake society's narrowed minds on their perception of beautiful and that blonde hair and white skin doesn't equate to beauty. I am not saying that people with these characteristics are not beautiful but the fact they are seen as superior due to these qualities regardless of the beauty inside.

Video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahdvo70fRhk

In response to this I decided to post a question on Facebook to my friends and see what they thought beautiful was. My question:

'Just wanted to ask you a question in regards to my photography project about the idea of a beautiful person. You can write as much/little as you want. I'm doing a mini survey.

What is your concept of beauty in a multicultural society?'

This is what they responded:

beauty in my mind is the pursuit of an ideal rather than the ideal itself. nobody sees the same idea of beauty because everyone has a differnet idea of their ideal situation. whever its how someone acts and behaves or just pure cosmetics. i think beaty is purely the human urge to be better and climb higher in the social rank, we see people as beautiful because we want to be more like them

Cool, Well as regards to beauty I feel that I'ts every where not just in people and not in looks. What makes a beautiful person is not just the way they look, but how they act. Are they trust worthy, kind, funny things like this make a beautiful person to me. As far as people are, natural is beautiful

Confidence obvs can make anyone attractive if there not afraid to be who you really are

I think you can find beauty in almost everything. But regarding people I think being your natural self is beautiful

Everyone is beautiful in some way or another whether it's skin deep or their personality. 'Beauty' has unfortunately fallen into the grips of a commercial stereotype, so unless you are a certain height, weight, skin colour, etc, many people feel that they are not beautiful if they don't meet this ridiculous criteria

Beauty can be found in anything! With people, I think being able to believe in yourself & express that in a way you feel is right is beautiful - though music, art, your personal style, etc. You need to feel comfortable in your own skin.

Without reading all of the posts above me, I'd say that everyone is beautiful. Everyone defines what makes a beautiful person differently, so we can't generalise to anything specific.

In the words of David Bailey: no one is the most beautiful woman in the world

well i know its said that symmetry makes a beautiful face - if you're talking solely about looks but im not sure how far i agree with that. But i certainly think confidence is key, and also to look healthy - maybe that comes from natural instinct in seeking a healthy partner to have kids with - survival of the fittest and all that! (no pun intended...)

well considering the aspect of beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder i guess, as for the context of multicultural societies and beauty, i would agree that yes aspects of their race, their religion, characteristics can be beautiful, how many times do we see in national geographic the tribes of the Amazon, the slums of India, etc etc and yet all are portrayed in ways that are beautiful, though perhaps in real life are not instantly beautiful, we can appreciate it after thought

Beauty is like art, we all view it differently. It is easy to assume your question refers to people and faces however beauty can be seen in all aspects of society, albeit a multicultural one. A baby suckling on its mother; loving couples hugging/kissing; different races together playing and enjoying each others company; to me these are all images of beauty. To appreciate beauty in a multicultural society, one has to first embrace multiculturalism and what its diverse culture can offer. Some women who wear a hijab for instance can have the most beautiful eyes, equally a Jewish man wearing a kippah could have a beautiful smile or Africans and Caribbeans have a beautiful way of expressing themselves and so on. Yes, to get a real feel of beauty within a person one needs to know what their heart and character are like. As this is not always possible, what we see at first glance depicts what we view as beauty. The fashion industry have taken on different aspects of global culture to introduce and set new trends thus creating a new wave of image and style to beauty. Beauty is all around us and in a multicultural society it continues to grow. Sadly, humans have prejudices and preferences and sometimes the beauty that is portrayed is not always noticed.

im saying that natural beauty is better

I'll be covering other issues and artists that look at the concept of beauty so watch this space!