Candid Camera?

Today folks, I want to talk about photography - specifically one 'type' thereof. It is a genre of photography called 'Street Photography' which basically involves taking shots of people going about their daily business. Photographers also call such shots 'Candids'. When I first started taking photography more 'seriously' I was very shy about taking shots of people in public. I sometimes saw other people doing it, but rarely did it myself. More recently, however, I have become less timid about it.

Earlier this month, there was a local 'event' which I knew would be perfect for taking so-called 'candids'. Knowing that it was an event at which lots of children would be present, I emailed the organisers to introduce myself, and asked their permission to take shots there. They agreed, and I have put all my images on a disc for them to use in any future advertising/publicity for a similar future event. I think that's a fair exchange - I'm getting practice, and they get something too (all I ask is credit for the shots).

I am becoming increasingly fond of 'Street Photography', but in our society at the moment it has become an awkward thing for photographers to do. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 gave the police the right to stop (and search) anyone taking photos. There is/was supposed to be a tangible reason for that person to be giving cause for suspicion, but in effect hundreds and thousands of photographers have been stopped and searched for doing nothing other than taking very innocent photos in public places, especially of public buildings - often they are tourists taking ordinary 'memento shots' of very famous public buildings. If they refuse to give the police their details, many are arrested and detained for hours. Police have the right to view pictures a photographer has taken, and if they feel anything they see could potentially be used for the purpose of terrorism, they can confiscate the camera/phone/etc.

Civil liberties is not a subject about which I routinely get wound up, but I guess that's because in this country we have pretty reasonable liberties. Having a camera in my hand in public places, has made me aware though, that where taking photos is concerned, one is not free to do what one likes. The law states that if one is on public property, one can take photographs freely. If other people are on that public property, they are fair game to have their photos taken too. The reality is of course, that if someone didn't look happy, or expressed dislike of having their photo taken, most photographers would stop - I know I would. I have started carrying a little notebook around in my bag, asking people if it's ok to take their photo, and offering to email them a copy if the resulting shot is a 'good' one. Most people are happy to oblige in response to this openness, and I have yet to be 'refused'. In fact I have had some lovely emails in response, thanking me for the images. It is even legal to stand on public property and take shots of private property - as long as you're not standing on the private land. Once one gets on to private property, the law is different - there should be permission given by the owner of said property for a photographer to take photos.

Where children are concerned, it is a good idea to get permission to take photos, although the law is quite clear that only children who are somehow 'at risk' (eg. the subject of a Court Order regarding their safety) are prevented by law, of having their photo taken in a public place. I have to say that I rarely take images of children which clearly shows their face or makes them readily identifiable to anyone other than their nearest and dearest (the photo above is an example of that). I also often desaturate the image as I feel black and white images, as well as looking good, do aid anonymity. I think many people don't realise that they are automatically 'up' for having their photo taken if they are out in public, and I know at least one person who would be aggressively horrified to have their picture taken anywhere without their specific consent.

Many photographers hope the new Government might do something about the impact Clause 44 has had on them. Before the election, the Shadow Home Secretary said the Conservative Party would, if elected, "end police misuse of controversial stop-and search powers that have hit many innocent photographers." In 2008 there was a 66% increase in the number of photographers being stopped and searched compared to the year before. I haven't been able to find figures for the years since.

A fellow photographer at Camera Club was recently stopped by a farmer, concerned that she was taking photos of his horses. They were in the foreground of a shot she was taking of general countryside. He told her that there is a practice of photographing horses, putting the photographs on the internet to advertise both horse and location, and that horse stealers come in the night and take the horses away. I had never heard of such a thing, neither had the woman from Camera Club, but evidently it does happen.

I plan to continue to take photos of people in public places. I haven't been stopped by the police thus far, and as a friend of mine said "you hardly give off the vibe of either a terrorist or a paedophile". I'm interested to know what you think though, Dear Reader? Would you mind if someone took your photo whilst you were out shopping? Did you know that that is perfectly legal, and how do you feel about it?

© Author