Off Limits

In 1998 a Québécois street photographer was successfully sued by one of his subjects, who claimed that he violated her privacy by taking her picture out in public. He uses this ruling to explore the social, artistic and ethical concerns around street photography.

This is a passionate and convincing documentary that seeks to defend the rights of the photographer and tries to see where we should be drawing the line in terms of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Do you have the rights to your image, or is a photograph more like a painting?

I like the film but I don’t entirely agree with the takes Duclos has in Off Limits. I think he yearns for the mid 20th century where most people taking photographs were either artists or holiday makers, but in 2005 when the film was made it was clear that the writing was on the wall for this style of candid photography.

One person he interviews rues being called a creep for photographing a little girl in public. Perhaps it’s just my perspective from 20 years on but I would not take a photo of a young child in public without explicit consent or that of their parents. Now everyone has a camera in their pocket, it is much harder to decipher what someone wants when they take a photo and I can completely understand why parents would not be comfortable with someone just snapping away.

People say, “I would never do this today because I might get sued or shouted at”. I would ask, are you self conscious of taking photos because of a court ruling, or because deep down you know you might be doing something exploitative or even weird? How are people supposed to identify you as a noble artist versus just some weirdo taking pictures of their kid?

I’m not actively trying to make a case against street photography, but Duclos seems overly hostile to the other side of the argument, painting the detractors as greedy profit-seekers. From my perspective (and as someone who also takes pictures out in public) I can totally see why people might be freaked out - and I don’t think it’s always because they are seeking financial gain for their image.

On the other hand I do understand the fears of these photographers. Some of the most important documents of life in the 20th century were captured by people going out and taking photographs. If everyone had a right to not be photographed in public, humanity would have missed out. It feels like society is trying to stamp out an art form that barely had time to get off the ground.

There’s also a point to be made about the eye of the photographer having value. Everyone has a camera in their pocket now, and has done for over 10 years. We are presented with a constant barrage of images every day of our lives. A photographer is there to help improve the signal-to-noise ratio in a way that is more important than ever.

So my conclusion is that the current status quo seems OK? At least here in the UK, legally the rules are pretty relaxed. You can take pictures of who you want and what you want, as long as it’s in a public space and as long as it cannot be counted as indecent. You own the copyright to the images you make.

There’s a societal pressure to not be weird about it, but is that such a bad thing? In a time where we are constantly filmed and photographed by machines, perhaps asking for consent is the most human thing you can do.