461
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago

As a photographer I’m a firm believer in the right to take photos and videos in public, for both artistic and documentary purposes.

sure, no problem with that, just be careful.

There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place

that's blatantly false. However much you deny it, there is an expectation of privacy in public. we are not going out to have a chance to be acting on your photos and videos. we are going out because we need to, to go to work, the shop or to the doctors.

it would be right to say, there is no expectation of being invisible, or that nobody will see me do my things on the street. and of course if we do something silly, people will see that and judge us. but that is not what you said. there is an expectation of not having a permanent record of our own lives if we don't want, and anything standing in the way of that needs to go.

that being said, yes, you can take photos and videos in public. granted that there are no unconsenting people in the scene, or that they will not be recognizable in the resulting images. otherwise dont be surprised if you are being judged.
recognizability does not only mean, whether do I know that person, or whether the face is visible. photographers are notorious for uploading their images to tech companies that have the capabilities and the practice to do their magic on photos to recognize people by their other attributes.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

when that photography creeps into voyeurism there are definite laws. it's ridiculous that they throw out 'but in public you have no expectation -' naw, how about they don't take pics and vid of kids and people without their consent.

there will always be creeps, and those creeps will always be willing to abuse their rights to infringe upon others. stop giving the creeps better hardware and telling us all to accept it.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 6 days ago

granted that there are no unconsenting people in the scene, or that they will not be recognizable in the resulting images

Nope. That's neither the law nor the ethical requirement. If it were, the entire genres of photojournalism and street photography would not exist. Things may change if it's for commercial purposes such as an advertising campaign, or if it forms part of a pattern of stalking or harassment or similar, but the general baseline is exactly as I said: there is no expectation of privacy in public.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 days ago

That's neither the law nor the ethical requirement.

the law needs to be changed, and your lack of ethics is your subjective preference.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 0 points 6 days ago

It's not a lack of ethics to stand up for photographers' artistic rights against the utterly insane idea that people should be allowed to pretend they can be private while out in public.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
461 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

88280 readers
2585 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS