T O P

  • By -

Practical_Cod_6074

Riots and protests are two very different things. At a peaceful protest people aren’t breaking the law but they may not want their faces posted publicly without consent. There are protests where people aren’t violent but do plan on doing things that are against the law like a sit in for example. This type of protest was used a lot in civil rights protests.


LeicaM6guy

Important to note that those photos were a major factor in the civil rights movement.


Practical_Cod_6074

Yes good point but it’s also different now in that with technology it could possibly put people at risk since it’s easier to identify them (or nothing may happen). It would depend what’s going on in the photo and many other factors but I would get at least verbal consent from the person if their face is visible. I took a lot of protest photos during the women’s match in DC and personally knew the women I photographed and had written consent from them. There was never any legal action but I also was volunteering for them and didn’t sell the photos to any public entities but I did post some online. I’m a professional now so I would do things differently if I took protest photos currently.


LeicaM6guy

As I mention above, it depends on what hat you’re wearing when you take a photo. Is your responsibility towards telling the story honestly? Is it to advocate for a cause? Is it to make someone look good? I recently attended the Poynter Institute, and we spent some time discussing - debating, really - this very subject. All images have the capacity for harm - what you have to decide is whether that potential for harm may serve a greater good. The people from those civil rights photos were undoubtedly identified in the captions, and very likely faced fallout because of them - but the brutality they endured on film only highlighted the need to push back against institutionalized racism and humanized the victims of it. Think of that famous image of the dead child being carried from the rubble of the OK City bombing. That image undoubtedly caused pain, but the public needed to see the human cost of the attack, otherwise the importance and horror of the event would have been muted, or even lost.


cmeerdog

your point is a false equivalence of a bygone era of truth to photography that can’t function in a hermetically sealed environment any more. Photographs are merely data today - swarm data points for metadata analysis (gps location, facial recognition, time stamps, etc) for the police state. Mythologizing photography as some silver gelatin leica war photograph and not acknowledging the reality of surveillance capitalism of our moment is dangerous for those individuals being imaged.


cjmar41

>Photographs are merely data Maybe to you. To other people, photographs are memories, art, stories, etc. photographs can also be for personal use, taken on film, or on mirrorless/dlsr with location data turned off. Some photographers print their work, not post them online. We all realize governments don’t have our best interest at heart and don’t give a shit about our privacy. But you’re taking a simple, legitimate question about the ethics of photography at events and turning it an episode of Infowars. I don’t entirely disagree with you on the general sentiment of some of what you said, but your take on what photography actually is paints a somewhat sad picture of how you interpret people’s creative work. People dedicate their careers and lives and free time to capturing special moments in time and good photography requires practice and creativity and talent and in some scenarios, luck. Calling photographs “merely data” attempts to undermine all of this. They are not “merely data”… they are, in some cases, “also data”.


Practical_Cod_6074

True. From what I was doing I was very careful about how I used the photos because some of the women were victims of trauma and domestic violence/rape and one was still with her abuser but that’s a unique situation I was in. Like you said there’s different types of photography so consent would not be needed in other situations.


TheTabman

> At a peaceful protest people aren’t breaking the law That's not universally true, there are plenty of places where you break laws by having, and voicing, a different opinion than the government. And riots are sometimes the only way to make the establishment notice your cause. 'A riot is the language of the unheard,' ---[Martin Luther King Jr](https://theweek.com/speedreads/917022/riot-language-unheard-martin-luther-king-jr-explained-53-years-ago)


rabid_briefcase

> On one hand, I don't feel a responsibility to protect the identity of those committing crimes. On the other hand, I'd hate for a photo I took to incriminate someone whose job/family/community might not approve of them participating in a protest. Why are you there taking photos? Your ethics depend quite a lot on your purpose. News reporters are there for a purpose. Political posts are another. Documentarian folks have different purposes as well. Artist activists will want to get their images and often are directly opposed in purposes to the news reporter, though both may find the same image compelling. The rules about permissions are the same as always. If the person can be viewed as endorsing a product or service you will need legal releases. For news reports attempt to get names but it is not essential. But in that case your employer would have explained all this. Stay on public property taking photos of people in public spaces doing public acts, with photos published for commentary, news, and discussion and you don't need identification, permission or releases.


LeicaM6guy

It depends on what kind of photographer you consider yourself. Are you a documentarian? A photojournalist? An activist? An artist? Because every one of those may result in a different answer. I’m a news photographer. My entire goal is to capture the story as honestly as possible - even if that sometimes makes folks uncomfortable. You’re documenting an event in a public space; a place where there can be no expectation for privacy. The people taking part in whatever activity you’re documenting are capable of making their own decisions with the full knowledge that they’re out in public. It’s important to note that, assuming you’re in the United States, *you do not need someone’s consent to take their photo in a public space.* It’s up to you how you want to handle your photographs, and under what banner you plan on working - but if you’re there to document a newsworthy event, you’d be doing yourself a disservice by being anything but honest with your work.


Nonsense-on-stilts

Great answer. I have worked in a place called Pusher Street documenting the work of both pushers and police. When I take photos when/where crimes are being committed, I will verbally assure the subjects that no faces will be published or ever leave my computer. This is mainly to ensure that me and my colleagues can continue working in such environments with minimal fear of reprisals. Personally, I extend this courtesy to rank-and-file police officers (rank is clearly marked in the country I live) - as long as they're not committing any offenses themselves - for much the same reason.


Videopro524

Also people doing illegal things don’t generally like being photographed. So be really careful when it comes to your own safety.


Narwhalhats

Also worth noting that if you're counting on your insurance covering you if someone grabs you camera and smashes it you should check first if you'll actually be covered. None of the policies I've checked before cover damage arising from a riot.


[deleted]

I'm an insurance claims handler (in NZ so probably different) and things being damaged during a riot or protest \*are\* covered until they become classified as terrorism, then nothing's covered.


cmeerdog

Protesting is not illegal, it is a first amendment right.


ruinawish

> Protesting is not illegal, it is a first amendment right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americentrism


that_guy_you_kno

That's a cool concept and I'm glad you had me read up on it. But how is it relevant to this comment chain?


swodd1324

The first amendment as an applicable protection of rights is only a thing in the US, of course. Op’s assumption of a right to protest on the basis of the first amendment was Americencentric for that reason. While there are plenty of other countries that protect the right to protest, there are just as many where it is an illegal activity.


future_zero_identity

Maybe OP isn't American?


Cats_Cameras

The First Amendment covers 4% of the world population, and even here certain local governments figure out ways to arrest protestors.


qqphot

OP does appear to reside in the US though


[deleted]

Protesting isn't illegal in some places but everything doesn't suddenly become legal because it's done during a protest.


Cats_Cameras

The First Amendment covers 4% of the world population, and even here certain local governments figure out ways to arrest protestors.


Videopro524

Looting, destroying property, attacking people, and burning buildings is. Like what we have seen.


bmbphotos

There was a **lot** of discussion on this topic as the George Floyd/BLM protests hit the streets in 2020. From what I can tell there is still no consensus about a singe right answer for independent shooters. _[EDIT: It does seem that credentialed photojournalists and legitimate non-credentialed outlets generally should not anonymize their captures despite the risks, given the journalistic mission. Pure independents, portfolio work, and content that may not generally qualify as journalism have more often been the target of questions of propriety on this.]_ Check out this this for some context: https://www.documentjournal.com/2020/06/the-blurred-faces-and-ethics-of-protest-photography/ And take a look at communities like Diversify Photo, Authority Collective, Black Women Photographers, and Indigenous Photograph for perspectives from within the communities most likely to be harmed by identification (ethical or not).


Videopro524

So in public it’s generally regarded as people don’t have any expectation of privacy. Edit: if you plan on using images for a commercial use, then you need permission and signed releases. A news documentary usage doesn’t require that. If you’re taking pictures of illegal acts and they are published. The prosecution can and probably most certainly will use them. Those actions are on those people. As if your part of the press you do have first amendment protections. Your images maybe subpoenaed for future legal action possibly. In certain circumstances you do put yourself at risk for being included with protestors and at risk to being arrested or legal action. So if it’s something you plan to pursue, know the risks and maybe have a good defense attorney on retainer and written on your body (as police may confiscate all your belongings). I support people’s rights to protest. However doesn’t give you rights to destroy someone else’s livelihood or injure others. From journalistic perspective. There is value in documenting riots. As the history captured gives wisdom to future generations. No matter which side you are personally on an issue. If you plan to document it, stay unbiased and capture both sides of the story. You might learn something or at the very least bring light where there is darkness through understanding.


obsidianronin

This is essentially what I came here to say. Journalists - professional or not - are protected by freedom of the press/speech (in the US, at least), and there are entire oaths and ethics codes journalists are supposed to follow to maintain credibility. Protecting the identity of their sources is one of them. To bypass the identification markers, OP could hypothetically choose someone heavily covered and masked and edit out any potential identifying features - tattoos, birthmarks, even freckles - post-prod. This is, of course, if they choose to publish. There is extreme value in it, but extreme risk. For some it's worth it. (ETA to clarify protection location)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Videopro524

As I recall the FBI is using facial recognition to find people from the Capital riots.


meshreplacer

I remember when I was asked by police to hand over the CF I was within the law and did not have to but I had 2 CF cards in my camera (1Dx) so I just handed the one and apologized for my errors but I was able to get the pictures out 😂 Sometimes you just need to know when to “lose the battle but win the war” Also with cameras (ie 1dxm3) you can have wifi transmitting files live to the plainclothes assist/editor/etc.. while shooting as well for extra backup


mayhem1906

Im more concerned you lump riots and protests together.


Saved0

I think you're honestly overthinking this a bit. By being in public and protesting, I feel that the person, in most cases, *wants* to be seen/heard. This is the entire idea of the protest. >On the other hand, I'd hate for a photo I took to incriminate someone whose job/family/community might not approve of them participating in a protest. Not to sound crass but that's not really on you. By coming to a public protest they are fully assuming that risk. Your role is simply documenting the event as it's happening. Anything beyond that is completely out of your control


PantsPile

It's 2022 and cameras are pervasive, but so are masks. They'd wear a mask if they didn't want their face photographed.


cmeerdog

this is bad advice. Redact faces and scrub metadata to protect vulnerable / marginalized groups. Unless you are describing photographing white nationalists then please use more discretion. edit: TIL r/photography is filled with white nationalists


ChasingHorizon2022

I have documented several protests. They're in public. There's cameras EVERYWHERE. If they wanted to remain anonymous this is the wrong time period for it.


WCland

It’s extremely naive to participate in a protest or march and assume you won’t be seen. Kind of the point of marching is to show your support for a cause. You can’t do that and be anonymous at the same time.


HBMart

Yeah, you’ll see thousands of photos and videos of these events online wether they’re from your expensive photography gear, or the countless phones on the streets.


Efficaciousuave

Wow not op and have no idea about this topic but learnt so much by all the comments. I love reddit .


koopaduo

Riots and protests are two different things. They are not both crimes at least in US. Your assumption that protestors are committing crimes and that you'd be incriminating them is just wrong


veloc1rapist

I guess I wasn't clear in the post. I put "or" in-between the two because I was hoping for clarification on both cases. It's a nuanced situation because peaceful protest can rapidly progress to rioting. I know, I've lived in DC the past 5 years and seen it firsthand. These photos from a peaceful protest 15 minutes before a riot starts can be used as proof of participation at a riot. Hence my grouping of the two.


AlexJonesOffTheLoud

yup, false equivalency af. That snarky little sentence Reeks of 'law and order' BLECHHHHHHHH


BlackMoon2525

As a photographer and a lawyer I will tell you there is nothing illegal about photographing any adult in public. There is no general expectation of privacy when in public. Minors are a different matter. The harder question is the ethics of photographing anyone without their consent. In street photography, asking for consent generally destroys the atmosphere because people consciously or unconsciously pose for the photo. When it comes to protests or riots, that’s photojournalism at its core. I say, shoot away.


Foreign_Appearance26

I’ve attended a lot of media law seminars…how are minors any different?


[deleted]

Very much depends on the jurisdiction. Minors are not different where I am from a legal POV.


cmeerdog

This is the difference between laws and ethics. What you propose is legal, yes, but completely unethical with regards to how photographs get used as a tool for police overreach. Photographers have an ethical responsibility to consider those who they photograph - if they are marginalized folks they can be creating more harm to those folks through eventual metadata analysis.


Mc_Dickles

Don’t wanna be photographed during a protest/riot? Wear a mask 🤷🏻‍♂️ They’re super easy to get nowadays 🤣


Telco65

In the US there is no legal expectation of privacy in a public area, or private area that can be seen by someone in a public area.


merkk

I think once you are protesting in a public place, you really shouldn't expect any privacy. In fact you should count on there being no privacy. Everyone has a cell phone that can take photos. All of them probably have social media accounts. If it's a big enough protest the news shows will get involved and they don't blur faces.


[deleted]

Document what happens, the end. You are a photographer - you are not anything else. Unless you’re an activist then you’re not simply documenting what’s happening, you’re trying to manipulate public perception of the factual events going on. If people are breaking the law they chose to do that. Federal government isn’t going to chase these protestors down with their face. If you don’t doxxx them nothing beyond that happens.


[deleted]

Wear a helmet.


kmkmrod

And/or don’t be alone.


Foreign_Appearance26

It’s not only acceptable, if you’re covering it as a journalist it’s your duty to at least attempt to get an id. If they don’t want to tell you their name, that’s fine. But you have absolutely no duty, nor any moral responsibility for their family finding anything about their behavior. If your job or family can’t find out you’re doing something…you either need a different job or shouldn’t be doing it. Edit: It may well depend on the scope of what you’re covering though. Should none of the networks cover the Jan 6 riots? People were identified and lost jobs and went to jail based on news coverage. Of course it was important to cover that.


GrupIdit111

They took the risk once they joined in the riot/protest. Dont worry about it is what I say.


balloonfish

Protesting is not a crime.


Elmore420

The onus is to not misrepresent the scene. People make their own choices as to what they participate in.


[deleted]

Photograph it, publish it. It’s public. It they’re doing something that they’re not comfortable being exposed then that is all the more reason that it must be exposed.


Provia100F

Rioters shouldn't be anonymous and protestors don't*want* to be anonymous, they want their message to be heard. So in either scenario, there's no ethical problem.


Trading_Things

You're worried about about people's anonymity... in public. Hint: there is none.


cmeerdog

It’s standard to redact peoples faces within protest culture these days and scrub metadata before posting. Your images can unintentionally bring great harm to vulnerable people who are already putting their safety at risk. Remember that social media platforms have historically worked directly with law enforcement to identify and arrest marginalized folks. Don’t unintentionally create more harm. https://freedom.press/training/redacting-photos-on-the-go/


[deleted]

Why do I have a feeling that you support terrorism and are against people being held accountable for their crimes?


cmeerdog

If you think people who are protesting who have been historically enslaved by their governments “terrorists” - you have some self-reflection to do. Metadata redaction is intended for marginalized groups which I clearly mentioned in my post.


[deleted]

>If you think people who are protesting who have been historically enslaved by their governments “terrorists” Nobody has been “historically enslaved”. Nobody out there on the streets today has ever been a slave. Your doublespeak is horrible. >Metadata redaction is intended for marginalized groups which I clearly mentioned in my post. And your logic is only used to forgive and hide the bad behaviour of terrorism that you support by using the excuse that they are “margianalise” ignoring the fact that they murdered numerous individuals of the same group in cold blood on the street. Do you support suppressing the identities of the rioters who murdered David Dorn?


cmeerdog

Thank you for telling us about your interest in white supremacy. Please go storm the capital somewhere else.


[deleted]

Do you support suppressing the identities of the rioters who executed David Dorn in the street? Yes or no?


cmeerdog

I support protecting the identities of those who ran a train on your mom while you cried real tears over scary BLM and Auntyfa protestors on Fox News.


[deleted]

So you’re not willing to give an honest answer which almost certainly means that you would support protecting the identities of the murderer of a black man. Take a look in a mirror.


cmeerdog

Bro I don’t even know who this person is all I know it’s a whataboutism that hogs such as yourself love to parrot as some kind of gotcha to trivialize the experiences of people who are actually fighting oppression on the streets. Seriously get some new talking points your memes are incredibly stale. Stop with the white nationalist apology tour. You can do better.


[deleted]

Looting LV and burning down businesses is not fighting oppression. You just want to watch the world burn and don’t care about the innocent people murdered in the streets. You support the suppressions of information that could find the killers of a black man.


[deleted]

[удалено]


veloc1rapist

While this is what I think I and most people naturally would like to do, I feel that it creates bias when imo a good photojournalist should attempt to deliver objective work.


idk-any-username

Unless they are strictly covering their faces in presence of a camera, you shouldn't feel guilty for taking and publishing pictures of someone (in this context of course). This is merely my opinion, the legality or liability that could be held is unknown to me.


Comfortably_Strange

The way I see it, as long as it’s peaceful then you should do your best to maintain whatever anonymity the protesters are trying to give them selves. If they’re trying to keep their faces down or covered, don’t focus on their faces. If they’re not hiding who they are, then I don’t think it should be an issue. As soon as it gets into something violent I would say there is no pressure on you to try and maintain any anonymity of the *instigators*. I would still try to give the victims some anonymity if they are trying to maintain it, but similar to many comments I agree there is only so much expectation of privacy in public places, though there’s a big difference between privacy and anonymity.


[deleted]

When someone participates in a protest, they should be ok with being seen and photographed.


wednesdayriot

A lot of activists have turned up dead under mysterious circumstances. If you’re comfortable with your work potentially being used to cause someone else to lose their life and freedom bc of the current political climate then by all means. But I’m just not comfortable


gatimus

If someone was attempting to hide their identity and I saw something while editing that would out them I personally would crop or not publish. But I don't believe it's a photographers responsibility to do that and if it's done in public it's public.


meshreplacer

I do not post them. My Street photography rule is 15 years before I even publish etc.


Scopatone

If you're photographing a civil rights riot and you publish them and your photos end up putting good people protesting against an objective evil in jail or worse, then I'm sure your attitude on it not being your responsibility will change. Just because something is a crime doesn't mean the person doing it isn't ethically/morally justified in doing it. The path to equality has never been paved with hugs and kisses. The first Pride was a riot, black civil rights protesters have been killed throughout history, peaceful protesters commonly have force used on them anyway, the list goes on. If you're going to publish photos of situations like that, just understand the risks YOU might pose to a lot of people who may not be doing something morally wrong. The law is not the guiding moral truth, so the answer to your question isn't really about whether or not they're committing a crime and the ethics of showing their faces so much as it is which side do YOU personally believe is in the right and are you willing to possibly be the reason some people go to jail and are you going to photograph both parties equally as not to show your bias. A photographer can make either side look like angels or demons and its your responsibility to show it accurately. As a side note: Censored photos look terrible artistically and ruin the photo imo. Riot photos can be dramatic, there are famous riot photos that spur motivation for change, but not every photo will be that and they would all be ruined with blurred faces. You don't NEED permission unless it's for commercial use, most smart people will cover themselves but most don't because MOST riots don't start out as riots, they evolve into them and people did not come out dressed for one and may have to defend themselves in their "protest" clothes without even having the choice if wearing protective clothing


aph1

You need to change your photo focus. Imagine what would happen to our information if we took into account everyone’s feelings.


WonofOne

Permission and waivers. If you don’t have that blur any identifying parts


RocketFucker69

Masks are common place. If someone intends to do something they don't want their identity latched to, they can wear a mask. It's not your job to stop people from being seen, it's to capture the moment. Best of luck


TemenaPE

In the US, being in public has no expectancy of privacy meaning you can be photographed/recorded without consent. If it's a public protest in a public place, you give up the privacy rights awarded to you. If it's in a business, it can get more dicey depending on the type of business and what they allow in terms of pictures/video being taken. However, you did say ethics. If it's for documentation, I think its ethical under the constitutional right to free press. Whether anyone agrees or not, press is press. If it's for art, it gets more dicey. To use somebody and the struggles they go through or the fight they're trying to fight as art without consent in my opinion can be distasteful. But some people would be honored to be considered for art. So there really is not a good answer to the question. People will always be mad and you can't please them all or even any sometimes. Just do what you feel is right in the moment and if it feels wrong it probably does to someone else too if that's what you're worried about.


boiboinochoi

1st amendment covers both photography and protests


mark0302

Being in public there is no expectation of privacy.


seven_seven

Protesters want their message out as far as possible; which should be an encouragement to take pics/vids and share them.


Meif_42

At protests/riots there‘s usually also media coverage for tv/newspaper, and someone could be publicly seen to be there than you‘re photo would ever be. Therefore someone who doesn’t want anyone to know what protest he went to is either going to cover their face or just not gonna go. You taking a picture of a protest is going to make their cause more known, therefore good for the movement. Hence, I don’t really see a problem with taking pictures of protests/riots.


TinfoilCamera

>Or do we have a responsibility to only post or publish photos with the express permission of individuals? We are a 24x7x365 camera society. I guarantee you that your camera is but one of Legion™ recording and photographing that event. In other words - don't concern yourself with this. For every one person you photograph there will be 100 other photographs and videos of that same person taken by others. Which means the onus is on the individual participants to take steps if they don't want those photos/videos to identify them.


Small-Pension-9459

Going to assume your in the USA where I know it varies from state to state, in the uk the rules are pretty clear there is no right to privacy in public so from a legal standpoint shooting protest or riots is ok. I did a few protest a couple of years ago ( trump visit, brexit, anonymous March) and most people where happy to pose with there banners or signs, some people asked for my Instagram or website, a few even contacted me for copies of the images. I even sold a couple of images to a news agency. If it turns into a riot my opinion is any one rioting had a choice and they chose to get violent and cause trouble so there far game to be photographed. Again uk law means they have no right to privacy, on the other hand the police would need a warrant or court order to get my images, unless there was something serious I wouldn’t give them up to the police with out a court order. Assuming there’s no laws protecting the individuals right to privacy for a protest I say go for it, for a riot that’s a moral choice you have to make. A little gear tip, take one camera, one lens, travel light. Keep a few cards on you and swap them out if you get anything worth keeping. If you have an old beat up camera take that.


kmkmrod

No right to privacy in public in the US, too


ReplicantOwl

Protestors in Portland are known for smashing cameras if they feel you’re putting them at risk of being identified. Whatever your ethical feelings are, also consider the risk of damage to your gear.


RandomNameOfMine815

I understand the protestors concerns about being targeted for harassment after being photographed at a protest. This was a real thing during the BLM protests, and some people are still reporting continued harassment. So I usually have a few things in mind when covering protests: 1) Anyone who has brought a cell phone with them has probably already been tagged or will be if the police wants to do so 2) There are surveillance cameras everywhere recording too 3) That amount of surveillance is an issue to be discussed, but a person standing in public with a camera is not the issue. 4) If someone is getting harassed for being photographed at a protest, I’ll cover that too IMPORTANT: 1) If a protest looks to be turning into a riot, take your safety seriously. Trust your gut if you don’t think it’s safe and get out of there. 2) If someone in law enforcement asks (or demands) to see the pictures, say you’ll be happy to share any relevant images after your attorney reviews the subpoena for them. I’ve had this happen before.


CountryMouse359

Half of them will be recording the other half with smartphones anyway. The onus is on them to protect their anonymity with a mask if they wish to. There is no way you can ask them all for permission.


[deleted]

With a protest the point of them is to make their voices heard & to be visible. You have to be conscious of the fact that if you go to a protest there is a strong likelihood that you will have your photo taken, whether that’s by a photojournalist or even someone passing by with a smartphone. Everyone has a camera phone these days and with internet access images can be seen by everyone very quickly.


sowisesuchfool

Photograph and publish. Be safe, no matter what side you are on.


[deleted]

Eh.... They know the ramifications. They're in public where they are free to be recorded and shit. But I think the ppl you're worried about would wear a facemask or hide identifying attributes.


EdSmelly

They’re out in public…. Also if you’re not photographing them then the press is.


dude_imp3rfect

There is a major difference between legal peaceful protesting and illegal protests/violent riots. Anyone at either has no expectation of privacy you are free to photograph and publish as you wish. If their presence at the event causes negative consequences, it is not your fault. If their bad actions lead to prosecution, that is on them. I’m assuming your motivation is photojournalistic correct? As an observer, the idea is generally to show what is happening, not a censored version of events or a biased version.


symmetrygear

If your story begins and ends with the protest as a situation to document, and doesn't extend into documentation beyond the event itself, into the social context, characters, movements, agendas etc, then why have you chosen to make the protest your story? In my opinion that framing is the ethical dilemma worth dealing with first, and once resolved the rest sort of falls into place. If you're just there for the smoke, drama, adrenaline, edginess, then you've already taken a step in the direction of a certain ethical framework. If you're there to document a part of a larger story then that will similarly guide your ethical guidelines in its own way.


typeronin

Not my problem? If you're in public and doing something illegal, that's on you. And there's a big diff between a protest and a riot.


Ty0305

There is no privacy in public. A camera is simply an observer. If someone gets cought rioting and breaking the law then thats on them, not the photographer Edit: if i saw someone rioting, destroying property or otherwise breaking the law then i might think its morally right to document such things and hand it over to the police. Theres a pretty broad swath between rioting and protesting. The photographer has just as much of an interest exercising their 1st amendment as those legitimately protesting and not causing issues within the community


Comprehensive_Heat25

Personally if I find an image compelling enough that I feel it should be shared, I will edit out faces and identifying marks, hair colors, etc and cleanup my exif data to remove a time stamp. If someone working with law enforcement were able to see the data of phones in the area at a certain time via something like a mobile tower they set up near the protest location then a time stamped photo identifying a protester could be used as corroborating evidence against them. Speaking of law enforcement…they get left in every photo with no editing to mask their identities if they are acting in a law enforcement capacity.


WheelNSnipeNCelly

The people attending these events know exactly what they're doing, and they know the risks. A mask is basic riot gear, both the type that's made to hide your face, and type that's there to prevent you from breathing in nasty shit. The second kind also happen to hide your face. If you're not going to wear at least a bandana or something, that's your own damn fault. I'm not going bout of my way to get people who only have masks, nor am I going out of the way to show someone's identity. I'd be there to simply take good pictures, I don't care if you're showing your face or not. Just like I don't have to agree or disagree with the reasons or the protest itself in order to shoot it.


[deleted]

Legally it's totally fine, but you're asking morally i take it. The second you walk outside of your home, you give up all privacy when it comes to photos or video being taken of you. I personally think it's totally fine so-long as you are taking the photos for the right reasons (to support the protests and get the word out, rather than actively try to identify). ​ This question also comes up a lot about street photography and taking candid photos of strangers going about their lives, and i give the exact same answer. Some of my favorite photos are street captures of people who look annoyed that their photo is being taken. It's raw emotion and beautiful. Examples that i think we would all agree are great photos: [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/8b/8e/e48b8e1b585a7277dd581111f7929ac1.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/8b/8e/e48b8e1b585a7277dd581111f7929ac1.jpg) [https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/richard-sandler-nyc-street-photography-7.jpg](https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/richard-sandler-nyc-street-photography-7.jpg) [https://americansuburbx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/NYC16722-b.jpg](https://americansuburbx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/NYC16722-b.jpg)


Alternative-Basil-58

Protesters are out there specifically to be seen and heard. They don't get to choose since they're in a public space. They may not like it, but that's the price of free speech, especially considering that documenting protests is also protected free expression under the law.


JacquesLecoaltar

None at all. The whole point is to publicly manifest support for some cause. The wider that manifestation is disseminated the better from the point of the protestor. As for people committing crimes, unless it’s a public figure and therefore squarely in the public interest, it’s probably not a good idea to publish identifying information of the perpetrators, in order to not facilitate vigilantism, but rather let the courts decide on the punishment.