If someone asks you to delete an image of them, do you oblige?

fret_wimp2

I've been looking at some images on Flickr, that were quite good of supposedly unsavoury characters. They saw the photographer imaging them and approached him (apparently in a threading manner) to get him to delete the images.

He didn't, and has them on Flickr.

My question is, if someone catches you imaging them in the street and asks you to delete the images, do you oblige?

I have been asked before to delete images I've taken of people, and I'm happy to oblige, as its their likeness, and if they not want me to have it, that's their right, be they nice people or unsavoury characters.

I'd just like to know where people stand on this

DaireQuinlan

By 'imaging' I assume you mean 'photographing'. I can't, as I'd have caught their likeness indelibly* on film, but if someone asked me not to share it or upload it I'd probable accede to their request.

*well, not 'indelibly' but it'd be a little difficult to 'delete' the one shot from a roll of film without screwing up the entire roll...

fret_wimp2

Fair enough Daire, I guess on film you can't do much without ruining the roll, so Im narrowing the parameters of the discussion to digital, where you can easily delete an image.

pixbyjohn

I shoot digital and I would certainly delete a photo if asked in a polite way.

AnimalRights

I do a lot of street photography and as you describe of "unsavoury characters"
I seldom delete unless my pretty face is in danger.

fret_wimp2

AnimalRights wrote: »

I do a lot of street photography and as you describe of "unsavoury characters"
I seldom delete unless my pretty face is in danger.

Clarification, I did not describe them as unsavoury, I took those words from the guy who took the image. I left it in though to see if it makes a difference if the person is friendly or unsavoury, if they want their image deleted

Corkbah

only delete if you have to .... someday that image could be worth money !!

no harm in deleting and then "recovering" the image....or shooting onto two memory cards and then deleting the image off one of them.

fret_wimp2

Corkbah wrote: »

only delete if you have to .... someday that image could be worth money !!

no harm in deleting and then "recovering" the image....or shooting onto two memory cards and then deleting the image off one of them.

What about respecting the persons request instead of trying to fool them?

Corkbah

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

What about respecting the persons request instead of trying to fool them?

depends on the person .... and depends on the picture (might need the pic in the future)

I have pics of plenty of celebs throughout the years ...many of which they asked me to delete - I have not used those images but simply put them aside....who knows, if someone is doing a book and wants some historical images of X or Y celeb as a youngster....every image has its value ! (might not be valuable to you but might be of some value to someone else)

humberklog

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

What about respecting the persons request instead of trying to fool them?

Is it my misunderstanding or do you have your own answer to your own question and kinda wanting to right some wrong...on line?

fret_wimp2

humberklog wrote: »

Is it my misunderstanding or do you have your own answer to your own question and kinda wanting to right some wrong...on line?

I don't have any answer, but I have my on opinion on on this to be sure.

Also, the nothing wrong with a debate as log as it stays respectful of each parties views.

pete4130

Last time I was asked it ended up me bringing the offended person to O'Connell Street Garda station and them getting run out of the building.

So simple answer?

No.

GarIT

Why do photographers have so much power? IMO it should be a criminal offence not to delete images one is requested to. If it was me I would always delete them. Could you not just take a picture of the same thing again without the person in it?

DaireQuinlan

GarIT wrote: »

Why do photographers have so much power? IMO it should be a criminal offence not to delete images one is requested to. If it was me I would always delete them. Could you not just take a picture of the same thing again without the person in it?

what if your picture is of the person ??

GarIT

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

what if your picture is of the person ??

The person that the picture is of should decide what happens with it. There is no need for pictures especially at the discomfort of the person pictured. It would do away with all the people that needlessly bother celebrities.

humberklog

GarIT wrote: »

The person that the picture is of should decide what happens with it. There is no need for pictures especially at the discomfort of the person pictured. It would do away with all the people that needlessly bother celebrities.

I'm a bit out of the debate as I only use film, however could you begin to imagine the amount of pictures of historical and social importance that simply wouldn't exist if a person in the frame had a say in whether the picture was destroyed or not. And what of the pap and gossip mags? And what of newspapers? Blank...an important tool in society rendered half meaningless.

Swans and sunsets and milky water. No more reveal.

mdebets

GarIT wrote: »

The person that the picture is of should decide what happens with it. There is no need for pictures especially at the discomfort of the person pictured. It would do away with all the people that needlessly bother celebrities.

And how do you think journalism would work then without pictures?
And celebrities would be the first ones to complain if there weren't any pictures of them in the papers and on TV.

As to the original question:
I only deleted pictures twice, once was when a Greek police officer in riot gear told me, the other time when a Greek anarchist asked me (both cases of self preservation). I recovered the pictures in both cases as soon as they were away.

GarIT

humberklog wrote: »

I'm a bit out of the debate as I only use film, however could you begin to imagine the amount of pictures of historical and social importance that simply wouldn't exist if a person in the frame had a say in whether the picture was destroyed or not. And what of the pap and gossip mags? And what of newspapers? Blank...an important tool in society rendered half meaningless.

Swans and sunsets and milky water. No more reveal.

The photographers would just have to learn to wait until an area was clear to take a picture. I don't think they shouldn't be able to take pictures with people in them, but they shouldn't be able to keep a picture when someone in it wants it deleted. I don't think I've ever seen an important picture, some may look nice but I don't see what we would lose without them.

Paparazzi are bad and generally gossip mags are too, newspapers would still have the words that actually mean things and they could still use pictures too just not ones where someone objects to it. If you think about the pictures that any morally correct newspaper uses they wouldn't be affected at all.

Also taking pictures that include anyone under 18 should be completely illegal without the prior consent of the parents.

humberklog

GarIT wrote: »

The photographers would just have to learn to wait until an area was clear to take a picture. I don't think they shouldn't be able to take pictures with people in them, but they shouldn't be able to keep a picture when someone in it wants it deleted. I don't think I've ever seen an important picture, some may look nice but I don't see what we would lose without them.

Paparazzi are bad and generally gossip mags are too, newspapers would still have the words that actually mean things and they could still use pictures too just not ones where someone objects to it. If you think about the pictures that any morally correct newspaper uses they wouldn't be affected at all.

Also taking pictures that include anyone under 18 should be completely illegal without the prior consent of the parents.

Ah here, jayzuz sake you're throwing in a whole different argument with a good dollop of armchair manifesto.

From today's guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/adolf-hitler

GarIT

mdebets wrote: »

And how do you think journalism would work then without pictures?
And celebrities would be the first ones to complain if there weren't any pictures of them in the papers and on TV.

They can use pictures where nobody in the picture has an objection to it. They won't go without pictures, the majority of photographs have consenting people in it. Also with modern technology people can be cropped out of a photograph, or you can cut off the edges to get rid of people you don't need.

Celebrities would generally consent to their picture being used, but they would also have the power to have a picture destroyed if someone takes a picture up their skirt.

GarIT

humberklog wrote: »

Ah here, jayzuz sake you're throwing in a whole different argument with a good dollop of armchair manifesto.

From today's guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/adolf-hitler

What's the point in that? I'm not throwing in any argument, I just don't think that people should be allowed keep pictures of unwilling participants.

Corkbah

GarIT wrote: »

The photographers would just have to learn to wait until an area was clear to take a picture. I don't think they shouldn't be able to take pictures with people in them, but they shouldn't be able to keep a picture when someone in it wants it deleted. I don't think I've ever seen an important picture, some may look nice but I don't see what we would lose without them.

Paparazzi are bad and generally gossip mags are too, newspapers would still have the words that actually mean things and they could still use pictures too just not ones where someone objects to it. If you think about the pictures that any morally correct newspaper uses they wouldn't be affected at all.

Also taking pictures that include anyone under 18 should be completely illegal without the prior consent of the parents.

so you are saying if a paedo or child porn merchant or rapist doesn't want his/her photo taken they should have the right to have the photographer delete it .... ha !

or to use your own suggestion ... a"morally correct newspaper" image ... lets say a sports person doesn't want their image used because they lost a fight or behaved like an idiot (wreckless challenge or ran after the ref with a corner flag) .... should they not have their image printed ??

or at what point do they stop the image - sometimes images are sent from ringside/pitchside seconds/minutes after they are taken ... should a GAA/Football player run around to every photographer and say dont use a pic of me !!

GarIT

Corkbah wrote: »

so you are saying if a paedo or child porn merchant or rapist doesn't want his/her photo taken they should have the right to have the photographer delete it .... ha !

Yes, not by any random photographer. The Gardaí should issue pictures of any convicted criminals though for public safety.

EyeBlinks

Absolutely, delete, no questions asked.

One exception if asked to by a Garda in the course of their duty. Then I wouldn't.

humberklog

GarIT wrote: »

What's the point in that?

In the article there's a few snaps with people in them.

In fact I'd a quick browse at what some people might call "morally correct newspapers" and found loads of pics with people in them.

I even saw a funny pic of Enda chasing a goose. It was a very funny pic, thankfully this barking set of laws you envisage aren't in existence (well maybe North Korea) and thankfully Enda didn't ask for it to be deleted.


Anyway, enough nonsense now, (morally correct newspapers...Christ on a bike).

Condatis

If you take a picture of any person in a public place that picture is your property.

Corkbah

Condatis wrote: »

If you take a picture of any person in a public place that picture is your property.

thats the law as it stands in Ireland at the moment but GarIT says it shouldnt be that way.

Corkbah

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, not by any random photographer. The Gardaí should issue pictures of any convicted criminals though for public safety.

but what about sports personalities, musicians, business execs, politicians !!

I agree that the Gardai should issue images to the media on conviction of ALL criminals.

Piper101

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Absolutely, delete, no questions asked.

One exception if asked to by a Garda in the course of their duty. Then I wouldn't.

So you wouldn't afford a Garda the same niceties you would apply to an ordinary member of the public or even a paedophile given the context this thread has taken?

GarIT

I have to alter what I said after the discussion here. I think that it should be illegal to be in possession of a picture where someone who is clearly visible and is alive has formally objected to the existence of the picture.

challengemaster

Thankfully very few people share that opinion

pete4130

GarIT wrote: »

I have to alter what I said after the discussion here. I think that it should be illegal to be in possession of a picture where someone who is clearly visible and is alive has formally objected to the existence of the picture.

Well go have a look at this and remove everyone that didn't consent. Makes a few photographers on the ground look fairly useless really

thomasj

I think with more and more people in the possession of a camera thanks to advanced technologies in phones and the development of the social network this has made more than a mark on the photography industry.

For example, a few months ago a guy suffered a horrific death here on the streets of dublin. Minutes after the incident people were standing around taking photos of his mutilated body there are many more stories involving deaths, rescues of horrific injuries that sees people in the dozens standing around taking photos. (imagine how emergency services feel having to put up with this while trying to do their job)

Don't get me wrong social networking has made the big distant country/world move slightly closer to you thanks to Facebook and twitter. If they hadn't been around some of the amazing photos from the stormy weather or the massive fire in ranelagh we would never have seen.

But its peoples insensitivity to taking photographs of injured/dying/dead that's getting a reaction and one of these days there will be such a reaction triggered (high profile accident/incident) that we will see a huge debate and possible change in the law.

maglite

Should I be able to ask a shop to delete the CCTV once I've left/ finished walking past?

thomasj

maglite wrote: »

Should I be able to ask a shop to delete the CCTV once I've left/ finished walking past?

The cctv of you walking past a shop will not end up on a social network site (not unless theres a crime/something happens that needs crimeline to air that cctv)

joolsveer

I took a snap of police headquarters in Manhattan with a police officer in the frame. The police officer approached me and asked me to delete the photo and I complied in case I was arrested. This is the only photo that I have deleted on request.

jpb1974

Maybe this discussion needs to put into context... taking into consideration that there's a good possiblity that the ratio of photos taken with no objection vs. the opposite is probably quite high in favour of the former.

Personally I feel that the likelihood of people objecting is quite low, and so in the rare case of a polite objection I have no problem complying.

But don't get me started on those playground stalkers who point their lenses through the fence

chinwag

As has been touched on above, with the advent of digital cameras and social networking, it's not unreasonable for some people to not want their picture, taken by strangers, to be posted on the likes of Facebook. People are entitled to privacy if they so wish as it's no longer a case of just the image in the camera, it's what may happen to it afterwards and where it might end up, without their knowledge or permission.

DaireQuinlan

Corkbah wrote: »

so you are saying if a paedo or child porn merchant or rapist doesn't want his/her photo taken they should have the right to have the photographer delete it .... ha !

Piper101 wrote: »

So you wouldn't afford a Garda the same niceties you would apply to an ordinary member of the public or even a paedophile given the context this thread has taken?

jpb1974 wrote: »

But don't get me started on those playground stalkers who point their lenses through the fence

Ah the old WON'T-SOMEONE-THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN rule that applies to any thread about pictures taken outside that might, god forbid, include PEOPLE IN THEM. It's taken longer than normal this time 'round though :rolleyes:

frozenfrozen

If someone could give me a good reason then I would, otherwise i'd tell them I didn't actually take a picture, start browsing images on camera and just go from the first image on the card and show them random images until they're happy they aren't there. Muaha ha ha.

jpb1974

Ah the old WON'T-SOMEONE-THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN rule that applies to any thread about pictures taken outside that might, god forbid, include PEOPLE IN THEM. It's taken longer than normal this time 'round though

Oh dear.. I do apologize for speaking freely.

Maybe you should start a thread along the same lines as this, and perhaps set out the terms and condition regarding what we shouldn't discuss in order to keep you happy.

Wouldn't want to upset anyone would we?

DaireQuinlan

jpb1974 wrote: »

Oh dear.. I do apologize for speaking freely.

Maybe you should start a thread along the same lines as this, and perhaps set out the terms and condition regarding what we shouldn't discuss in order to keep you happy.

Wouldn't want to upset anyone would we?

It's ok, I could just re-read the countless other threads about taking pictures of people which invariably devolve into the same tired arguments and the same predatory paedo bogeymen lurking outside playgrounds

jpb1974

I'm not sure why you would want to... given your own admission of dislike.

GarIT

Can I just ask the photographers here, why would you want to keep a picture that hurts or distresses another person? Is your gain worth making others suffer?

challengemaster

Ah the drama llama has arrived.

If someone is genuinely hurt or actually distressed by a photo being taken of them, they have bigger problems tbh.

Effects

GarIT wrote: »

Why do photographers have so much power? IMO it should be a criminal offence not to delete images one is requested to. If it was me I would always delete them. Could you not just take a picture of the same thing again without the person in it?

I think it should be a criminal offense for people to even look at me.
I also object to having to read your posts in this thread. Can you delete them please?

GarIT

challengemaster wrote: »

If someone is genuinely hurt or actually distressed by a photo being taken of them, they have bigger problems tbh.

Maybe they do, maybe they just like privacy, but if someone is going to be distressed by what you are doing I don't see why you should keep the picture.

Effects wrote: »

I think it should be a criminal offense for people to even look at me.
I also object to having to read your posts in this thread. Can you delete them please?

You have a choice to leave, you don't have a choice to take yourself out of a picture.

Effects

GarIT wrote: »

You have a choice to leave, you don't have a choice to take yourself out of a picture.

You have a choice not to look at the picture someone takes of you. Just as I have a choice to leave this thread.
Now please delete your posts. I'm getting pretty upset at this stage.

DaireQuinlan

GarIT wrote: »

Maybe they do, maybe they just like privacy, but if someone is going to be distressed by what you are doing I don't see why you should keep the picture.

As the popular saying goes though, there's no right to not be offended. As CM says above, someone being 'distressed' at my taking their photograph is their problem, not mine. Now, as with everything else there's always edge cases. If they were on the run from the mafia for example, and my plan to produce a 1000 print limited edition series of them and sell them in the national gallery would prove to be quite risky for them then I might consider their distress warranted and promise not to use the picture for anything. At least for a few years :-D

Reoil

Effects wrote: »

You have a choice not to look at the picture someone takes of you. Just as I have a choice to leave this thread.
Now please delete your posts. I'm getting pretty upset at this stage.

I'm going to take a screenshot of all your posts and upload them to flickr. Wait, no. FACEBOOK. How do you like them apples, eh?

Paulw

Reoil wrote: »

I'm going to take a screenshot of all your posts and upload them to flickr. Wait, no. FACEBOOK. How do you like them apples, eh?

That would be a breach of copyright.

As for the main topic - if someone asks nicely, then I have no problem deleting the image. It's all about respect, and it works both ways.