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)
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:
Useful Links:
+1.jpg)
+1.jpg)
+1.jpg)
+copy.jpg)
+1.jpg)
+1.jpg)
.JPG)
+1.jpg)
