Introduction
Privacy and photography in public places has been a contentious issue in Australia and other countries. This paper aims at looking at how street photography is circulating in ever more limited fields.
According to Miles (2012, p. 14), there has been a change in the perception of privacy and photography in Australia owing to the fact that people believe that privacy is under threat. Individuals view street photography as a threat to privacy, public safety and child safety making its circulation more limited.
However, it is important to note that some individuals believe that the protection of privacy denies photographers some vital rights (Brookman 2010, p. 213). This is because the move leads to physical and psychological harassment and intimidation of photographers.
History of street photography
Street photography did not have a negative image where it was termed as a right to freedom of expression in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Photography was seen as a tool for the formation and reformation of various aspects of life (Miles 2012, p. 10).
People enjoyed taking photographs with family members or even strangers to demonstrate social cohesion. It was usual to find individuals carrying cameras and taking pictures of public places such as buildings and beaches. Photography in public places uplifted the notion of community and shared public life thus fostering social interaction.
This was important in promoting social and cultural value while preserving history for future generations. In addition, there was the right to convey information and ideas of all kinds whether in printing or in writing. Individuals taking photographs in public places did not face scrutiny and there was no need of carrying a permit (Henderson 2003, p. 279).
In the early years, there was no great emphasis on personal life, individualism or personal emotions. However, social and political changes, which lead to capitalism and individualism, have changed the perception of street photography and redefined the definition of privacy. Individuals are more concerned with personal space.
This creates paranoia that depicts public photography as a thriving art for perverts, pedophiles and criminals. It is important to note that public photography is receiving reduced recognition where individuals have upheld capitalism and individualism as the world continues to change (Miles 2012, p. 11).
The Debate
There has been an endless debate about photography, privacy and the public sphere in Australia. The debate becomes even more complex since there is no clear definition of privacy and the boundary between privacy and public space. The protectors of private space and the defenders of public photography have legal backing, which intensify the complexity of the matter and reduce the chances of finding an amicable solution.
According to the protectors of privacy, it is inappropriate to take photographs and circulate them without the consent of the individuals. This is not exceptional to photographs of individuals in public places such as beaches and shopping malls. Photographers have been accused of taking photographs and circulating them in websites that make the individuals subjects of social classifications.
Miles (2012, p. 12) gives an example of a team of teenagers that had their photos shown in a gay website. This has turned the boys into objects of the viewers who term them as gay. However, the boys did not have the consent of the photographs and the website.
This is a violation of their privacy and it negatively affects their self-esteem where older men view them as sexual objects. This is a good example of how photography invades personal privacy even in public places and can subject such individuals to social discrimination (Frosh 2001, p. 222)
Photography in public places has become a threat to privacy where the law is demanding the photographers to protect privacy. Such restrictions include filming or taking photographs for indecent purposes.
It is unlawful to film or take photographs of individuals in a state of nudity and when engaging in a private acts (Henderson 2003, p. 285). In addition, taking of photographs of children engaging in private acts is unlawful and violates child pornography legislations. Miles (2012, p. 12) articulates that this creates complexity in dealing with child protection and photography in public places.
It is important to look at privacy as a basic human right before deciding on restrictions on photography in public spaces. This is important when determining whether the preservation of privacy outweighs the benefits of public photography from a social, individualistic and political view. People view photography in public places as one of the major cause of violation of privacy rights.
According to Miles (2012, p. 10), technological advancement in information distribution is diminishing privacy in an unprecedented rate. This is the main reason why public photography is receiving attention with increased debate on whether to increase or reduce restrictions. Some individuals are pushing for the ramification of strict laws against those who invade privacy without cogent justification.
The push for laws to protect the invasion of privacy is deprivation of the rights of other to express themselves. It is difficult to understand the reason why taking a photograph in public place is restricted while all individuals in such a place realize it is meant for the public.
Photographers tend to become suspects and victims of harassment while they may have a passion for the art. In fact, the laws that aim at prohibiting public photography may lead to the death of photography as an art and passion for many (Brin 1998, p. 55).
The debate on street and public photography heats up when it comes to public safety. In the modern world, an increase in terrorism and attacks owing to various reasons such as religious revenge has led to denial of privacy rights. Foreigners bear the pain when they carry a camera meant to take public photographs. This continues to put pressures on public photographers that claim such accusations do not invade privacy directly.
It is rather surprising how rights to expression become a violation of liberal rights that collectively aim at protecting human rights. The lack of a clear understanding of privacy as it relates to public photography means that it is difficult to find a workable solution, which will favor both sides of the debate (Miles 2012, p. 21).
The definition of privacy is complicating the issues revolving around public photography. It is beyond doubt that there is lack of clear distinction about what is public or private. There are different definitions of privacy, where the boundaries lie between what is privacy, and what is public. The right of individuals to determine how or when to share their information has put public photography under pressure.
It is wrong to take photographs of individuals in public and share the information without their consent. It is also arguable that taking photographs of individuals at public places such as parks and beaches does not violate their privacy. The only problem is sharing the information with the public without the consent of the people appearing in the photograph (Bailey 2002, p. 44).
Owing to modernism and globalization processes, privacy is exclusively being termed as protection of individualism and personhood. The culture of individualism and materialism make people to place more emphasis on personal life and image. People want to expose only those aspects that they really want others to see.
This means that taking photographs of individuals in public and sharing them may expose a side of their life, which they really want to conceal from public (Henderson 2003, p. 281).
The notion of individualism and prevention of the public sharing of information or photographs is important in preserving dignity and self-esteem. This means that privacy revolves around the protection of individualism, which overrules public interest. This is a huge blow for public photographers that have a vision and passion for the art.
The debaters on street photography have to look at the issue of gender as it relates to privacy. It is true that public photographers may use images of nude or indecent women at public places for other gains other than the art. This may cause great humiliation and elicit a sense of anger from such individuals. This is contradictory since the women walk in public places while indecently dressed only to complain later.
Public photographers face discrimination and blanket condemnation where individuals view them as perverts and criminals. This kills the culture and passion of photography, which attracts many audiences in photo galleries (Brookman 2010, p. 218). Any person is free to view another in public places without the violation of privacy.
The fact that a public photographer takes a picture equates to keeping a record and showing other what he or she sees in public. This should not amount to invasion of privacy or harassment for public photographers where their cameras are taken and photos deleted (Miles 2012, p. 18).
It is inappropriate to extend privacy to public places taking into account that police and security officers have surveillance footage that they share without the consent of the individuals. This should not be different to public photographers that share what everybody sees in public through photographs.
It is important to note that the debate about privacy and the public sphere argument can go for long without having a workable solution. This is because it equates to two sides of the same coin, which has different repercussions. The debate further heats up with the privatization of public places and control over private property.
For example, it is restricted to take photographs of private property, which in the real sense stands on public land. This means that it will equally be impossible to show the current physical appearance to future generations. In addition, it is surprising to refer to a place meant for the public as private.
Photographers become confused when they are denied the chance to take photographers in places such as malls and shopping complexes, which they believe, are meant for the public (Henderson 2003, p. 285).
It is imperative to have a rational justification for the restriction of photography in public places. The restriction of photography in public places and privately owned space due to security threats such as terrorism should not amount to a ban on photography. This is because it limits how individuals engage and interact in public places.
It is important to take a historical and traditional approach to privacy and public photography before deciding on which side to support in the debate. This is because modern expectation of privacy and public photography revolves around individualism and capitalistic culture (Paton 2000, p. 67).
The debate on public photography and privacy revolves around circulation of the photographs (Miles 2012, p 7). In some extent, the defenders of privacy indicate that it is not wrong or unlawful to take photographs of individuals in public places. However, it becomes an issue when photographers circulate the information without their consent.
This should not be an issue as long as the photographers do not publicize indecent photographs. It is important to look at the effect of technological advancement in the form of sharing information. For example, when an individual posts photographs of his friends in social media sites such as Facebook, this should not be a violation of privacy. This is because the individuals also post their photographs for others to see.
Conclusion
It is important to acknowledge the fact that there is a thin line between what is private and public. The restriction of street photography does not have to be driven by individualism and the effects of capitalism or materialism. The photographers that have a passion for photography as an art are becoming wrongly accused and facing discrimination.
The idea about publication of photographs without the consent of the individuals complicates the whole privacy issue. The publication of photographs has a rich history where individual suffering under regimes and other forms of oppression have had public outcry. It is important to preserve the publication of photography since it is a social tool, which is beneficial (Paton 2000, p. 98).
Researchers articulate that it is important to determine whether the restriction of public photography outweighs its benefits. This leads to contradiction in the right to expression and communication and rights to privacy.
It is not worth to preserve the right to privacy, which may lead to denial of the right of expression. The debate may continue for long since both sides have legal and social backings (Reiman 1995, p. 57). However, it is important to look at the definitions of privacy and boundaries of public sphere before deciding which side to support.
References
Bailey, J 2002, From Public to Private: The Development of the Concept of the Private Social Research, Prentice Hall Publishers, New Jersey.
Brin, D 1998, The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, Perseus Books, London.
Brookman, P 2010, A Window on the World: Street Photography and the Theatre of Life, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Frosh, P 2001, The Public Eye and the Citizen-Voyeur: Photography as a Performance of Power Social Semiotics, Sage Publishers, New York.
Henderson, L 2003, Access and Consent in Public Photography, Routledge, London.
Miles, M 2012, ‘Photography, Privacy and the Public Life’, Law Culture and the Humanities, vol. 1 no. 4, pp. 1-25.
Paton, E 2000, ‘Privacy and the Reasonable Paranoid: The Protection of Privacy In Public Places’, Law Journal, vol.1 no. 1, pp. 37-49.
Reiman, H 1995, ‘Driving to the Panopticon: A Philosophical Exploration of the Risks to Privacy Posed by the Highway Technology of the Future Computer and High Technology’, Law Journal, vol. 2 no. 7, pp. 5-102.