photographing the private individual

Street photography: is a type of documentary photography that usually features people in candid situations in public places. (Source: Wikipedia)
private individual: opposite of public figures.

The right to privacy is an iffy area: it’s not part of our Constitution– which means it’s not legally protected by the law. Photographing a person in a public space is, therefore, not a breach of privacy, even if one finds the person in a compromising situation (of course, this can, and often is, debated). For example:
In 2006, a New York trial court issued a ruling in a case involving Philip-Lorca diCorcia, who had set up elaborate strobe rigs on a New York City street corner and had photographed people walking down the street, including Emo Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew who objected on religious grounds to deCorcia’s publishing in an artistic exhibition a photograph taken of him without his permission. The photo’s subject argued that his privacy and religious rights had been violated by both the taking and publishing of the photograph of him. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the photograph taken of Nussenzweig on a street is art – not commerce – and therefore is protected by the First Amendment. (Source: Wikipedia)
On the other hand, there is an advancing technology (much to our delight and woes) enabling the proverbial voyeur. An Australian man was charged for indecency when he captured photos of topless sun bathers at Coogee Beach, though the charge was not against violation of privacy.

 

Legal implications aside, what challenges photographers, equally if not more, are the moral and ethical dilemmas faced in every given situation. The following article “Supreme Court Uphold Appeals Court Decision in Favour of Harper’s Magazine” illustrates the ambiguities of professional mores, and what counts as acceptable ethical standards for photographers and photojournalists. This is of particular concern in the USA where the Constitution protects 1st/2nd Amendment rights to freedom of speech, expression and press. The issue of right to privacy may not be directly addressed in the article, nevertheless, the photographer’s use of the mentioned photograph raises this concern.

I’m not sure how the Singapore courts will rule in this instance. I presume, however, given the conservative nature of our society and even judiciary, they’re likely to order an injunction. (I can’t think of a good example off-the-cuff to illustrate this; I’ll post it if there is one.)

 

 

Supreme Court Upholds Appeals Court Decision in Favor of Harper’s Magazine

The casket of Spc. Brinlee at funeral services in a high school auditorium in Pryor, Okla. New York, NY, October 1, 2007 — The United States Supreme Court today upheld the March 23, 2007 decision of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Harper’s Magazine and photojournalist Peter Turnley in the case of Robert Showler and Johnny Davidson v. Harper’s Magazine Foundation and Peter Turnley. This case concerns the publication of a photograph of the open casket of deceased U.S. soldier Kyle Brinlee in a photo essay by Peter Turnley that appeared in the August 2004 issue of Harper’s Magazine entitled: “The Bereaved: Mourning the Dead, in America and Iraq.” (Download a PDF of the article.) Robert Showler, Sgt. Brinlee’s biological father, and Johnny Davidson, his maternal grandfather, filed suit in April 2005. They lost their case later that year when a federal judge in Muskogee, Oklahoma, ruled in favor of Harper’s Magazine and Peter Turnley, citing First Amendment and state law protections. Plaintiffs Showler and Davidson appealed the judgment in January 2006. On March 23, 2007, the appeals court affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding that Sgt. Brinlee’s funeral was newsworthy and a matter of public interest. The court of appeals also found that Turnley’s photograph published in Harper’s Magazine accurately reflected the image of Sgt. Brinlee’s funeral and open casket, as seen by over 1,200 people in attendance. At the grave of Abedal Hassn, Baghdad. “The Supreme Court has vindicated Harper’s Magazine’s position that Peter Turnley took photographs of Kyle Brinlee’s funeral with the full permission of the soldier’s family at a public event,” said Harper’s Magazine president and publisher John R. MacArthur. “The photograph was part of a larger essay, and from the beginning we emphasized that it should be viewed in the context of the larger essay depicting Iraqi and American war dead. Turnley was acting under the established principles of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, and deserves praise for his respectful and newsworthy photograph of Sgt. Brinlee’s open coffin. “ “My photograph,” said photographer and long-time Harper’s Magazine contributor Peter Turnley, “was an accurate depiction of what any member of the public and press attending this funeral could see. I was given permission to attend the funeral and no restrictions were placed on what I could photograph. I believe the photograph and the photo essay were newsworthy, respectful, dignified, and of great interest and importance to the citizens of our nation and the world.” “I am grateful to Harper’s Magazine,” said Turnley, “for publishing these photographs and for their tremendous support during this case. It turned out on the right side for journalism and freedom of the press and the First Amendment.” The Court of Appeals found that such “fair and accurate media coverage of official public occasions is in the highest and best interest of the public, [and] . . . cannot be treated as actionable….” “This victory is important, not just for Harper’s Magazine and Peter Turnley, but for the nation’s press and its citizens,” said the magazine’s attorney S. Douglas Dodd of Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, LLP. “It validates the right of the American press to cover newsworthy stories of importance to the American public without the chilling effect of successful lawsuits brought by those who disagree with the content of the stories.”