Is street shooting suspected of invading privacy? Who likes street shooting?

Is street shooting suspected of invading privacy? Who likes street shooting?

First answer what is street shooting: street shooting is commonly known as professional photography should be called documentary photography or humanistic photography. Street shooting is based on real life scenes, mainly including people, architecture, living customs, folk customs and so on.

Purpose of street shooting: street shooting, that is, documentary photography or humanistic photography, aims to reflect people's actual living conditions, living habits and customs, and is a true reflection of the current society! Anyone who shoots beautiful women or long legs in the name of street shooting is either bored or hooligan.

General requirements and skills of street shooting: street shooting, that is, documentary photography or humanistic photography, is strong in story, realistic in shooting, and should respect objective facts ideologically, without personal prejudice, out of thin air, discrimination or insult.

Invasion of personal privacy: As far as photography is concerned, personal privacy basically includes the right of portrait and reputation. Whether personal privacy is violated depends mainly on several aspects: first, whether the shooting location belongs to public areas, second, whether it discriminates against photographers (though not subjective), and third, whether it is used for commercial purposes.

In public areas, individuals have the obligation to be recorded by others, but it is best to get the consent of the person being photographed. If they don't agree, they should delete it immediately, at least they can't communicate.

Any street shooting work, especially the photos used for communication, shall not be insulting, personal prejudice, offensive or defamatory. If the person being photographed has personal physical defects, it is necessary to obtain personal consent!

All photographic works, including street shooting, as long as they are used for commercial purposes, personal portraits are never allowed unless authorized by the photographer, even the side and recognizable facial images are not enough. This is also the most stringent place for uploading works on major photo portals. As long as there is no portrait authorization, recognizable people are never allowed to appear in the image.

In short, street shooting is not for profit, street shooting cannot be aggressive, and street shooting should be based on objective facts. With these points, at least it won't break the law, but at most it is a moral problem!

Answer the first question first, some are illegal and some are not. Street shooting is a humanistic theme, which belongs to documentary photography. Either way, its main target is people, so many people who like photography have scruples, but many people are actually not sure which ones are invasion of privacy and which ones are not.

Is street shooting suspected of invading privacy? Who likes street shooting?

If you are too timid, start shooting from the back or silhouette!

Hello, let me talk about my views and suggestions:

First of all, different countries have different definitions of privacy and different legal interpretations of privacy.

If you want to go to some special countries, you must do some basic understanding and respect local customs and legal habits.

Very simple, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Don't you think the custom is very different from ours? Some people don't shoot at random, do they?

For example, in Nepal, as long as you are willing to tip, everyone welcomes you to take pictures, right?

Especially if you go to Nepal with professional cameras and lenses, you will be very popular.

Second, in our country, street shooting is basically no problem.

Even if there is a problem or dispute, it is also a civil dispute. Civil disputes are under the jurisdiction of specific departments and can be handled through procedures.

Street shooting may cause discomfort or disgust to the person being photographed, which is also the normal relationship between people. (To put it bluntly, it is the same as pursuing the opposite sex, falling in love and confessing. Can you say that it is wrong for others to like you? If someone tells you in the street that you don't like them, should you beat and scold them? )

Of course, you can't deliberately arouse others' disgust.

As long as the shooting is normal, it doesn't matter if the other person is uncomfortable or disgusted. If there is anything, don't shoot. If the other person has to do something to you, you just escape or admit it.

Basically, in our country, few people dare to hit people.

Especially in the street, who dares to hit people?

Unless the other person is really a bad person.

Fourth, don't maliciously vilify people in the street.

For ordinary people, it is better to take less pictures of other people's gaffes.

If it is a bad person, what should not be filmed and exposed if the bad person has done bad things in public?

Street shooting is a favorite theme of many photographers. I believe many photographers have the experience of shooting across the street. Regarding whether street shooting is suspected of invading privacy, this score depends on the situation.

Although most photographers have taken pictures, not all photographers who have taken pictures will "like" street shooting. Every photographer likes a different theme. Some people like scenery, others like portraits, and there is a special kind of photographer who likes to wander around the street with a camera.

To tell the truth, the biggest controversy in street shooting is the alleged invasion of privacy. Before you photograph someone, you don't tell them. After you photograph them, you exchange the photos they appear in front of you for money-from beginning to end, the photographed people don't know or know you. Do you think this is an invasion of privacy?

Therefore, some relatively strict photographers will try their best to avoid risks and prevent their street photography from invading privacy.

If the photographer obtains the consent of the subject when shooting in the street, it is not an invasion of privacy-after all, the street shooting works are taken with the other person's knowledge.

If the photographer did not communicate with the subject during the street shooting; Moreover, they don't know each other-this must be suspected of invading the privacy of the respondents.

If the audience is a little worse, take photos without the other party's knowledge and sell them with the other party's positive appearance ... not suspected of infringement, but a real hammer, that is, infringing on the other party's privacy and portrait rights.

1, without my consent.

This issue is highly controversial. See how you shoot and how to avoid invading other people's privacy. Let me answer that.

If there are some places where local government departments prohibit taking pictures! Special photo shoot! There is an invasion of privacy! People who like street shooting! First, I want to like it! Keep your chin up! People who are good at expressing themselves are either used for commercial model street shooting! Either a model in a physical store! There are people who have hobbies!

Street shooting for non-profit purposes, recording history, recording street shooting in special periods, will not invade privacy!

There is such suspicion, just as the British discuss whether monitoring should be installed in all public places. But purely from the perspective of social stability, in order to reduce the crime rate, it must be installed.