Will FACIAL RECOGNITION affect STREET PHOTOGRAPHY?
Facial recognition technology has already been fraught with controversy, but could websites like Clearview AI and Pimeyes.com change the laws around our ability to photograph people in the street? Will it change GDPR laws?
Even if it doesn’t change GDPR laws, do we still have a moral obligation to adjust our practices? And if so, how should we adapt? People’s right to anonymity is important, but so is art and media. Anonymity can keep people safe, but art and media is our window to the world. It’s one of the major influences in pushing our culture forward.
LAW AND ETHICS IN STREET PHOTOGRAPHY | SEAN TUCKER:
Music @ 07:48 — Lee Rosevere – Under Suspicion
——————————–
Links
💾💾💾💾💾💾
MY INSTAGRAM:
PATREON:
Retro Video Assets Packs:
💾💾💾💾💾💾
Retro Assets Pack 1:
Retro Assets Pack 2:
Retro Assets Pack 1 & 2 deal (25% off):
Lightroom Preset Packs:
💾💾💾💾💾💾
Full shop:
#1 My presets:
#2 Medium Format Film Stock:
#3 Kodak Film Stock:
#3.1 Kodachrome Film Stock:
#3.2 Kodak Portra Stock:
#4 Cinestill Film Stock:
#5 Fujifilm Stock:
Preset bundle deal (20% off):
—
Comments
35 responses to “Will FACIAL RECOGNITION affect STREET PHOTOGRAPHY?”
I think it’s quite scary, I’m not one that falls for scams and deception, but with this, you could target whatever individual you wanted to, for any purpose.
In the wrong hands it’s a licence to print money or cause distress and worry, it’s bad enough when older people get duped out of life savings and can’t get it back, that’s obscene, but other attacks from sophisticated criminals, these things need to be protected,by introducing legislation for its usage, like acts that protect your civil liberties as well as things you buy or travel on, they are all governed by acts, intended to protect the individual.
DG
Resly intersting topic and would be intersting how it Impact othet nation
Babe, wake up new Jamie Windsor video dropped
Great setup and topic, one that my circle of friends and I have started talking about funny enough. I think even broader strokes how AI fits into our current society and its permission to be used and deployed without consent is a heavy debate. I don't know where I stand on it to be honest, I see both sides but I do think ultimately there needs to be some sort of global regulation or consensus around things otherwise we can/will spiral out of control.
Awesome love your vids. I feel if you never intended to use facial recognition then you should not be liable. When I look at an image I really don’t care who the subject is. As long as there is a subject.
internet is becoming just another public place. If you willingly post this kind of information online you cant expect it to be private info anymore.
I think it’s important to consider that we are on a threshold where we’re guilting street photographers for the unscrupulous conscience of what other people reappropriate their images. And yes it might “potentially become harmful” if bad cops are photographed in the act. I think that’s where the case closes for me…street Photography uses the same privelige set as photojournalism and they can’t be separated.
These issues are incredibly complicated, but for me I’m concerned with mass surveillance opportunities that come with facial recognition software – and much of that due to companies under Surveillance Capitalism (Zuboff, 2017) collecting and collating all this data on us.
That being said, individuals should have a reasonable expectation to privacy in some public spaces, and it can get incredibly complicated. If someone finds they’re not photographed in a good light, but that photo symbolises a significant issue within modern society, what rights do and should they have? It’s not something I can answer with certainity, and even as a photographer, I’m not always one who wants to be photographed.
I think photojournalism could be a field significantly affected by this, with people being able to find their image being used easier. But also, what happens with an image published as journalism? Is it public domain and exempt, or would a person photographed be able to deem it unreasonable to be up?
Pimeyes,wow £32 a month😮
all to scary if you ask me,agenda 2030
I feel that people should just practice decent internet "opsec" – unless exposure positively impacts your business, there is no reason to put your name and face out on the internet; Heck, in the early internet days, being anon was the default. If you yourself don't put yourself on display, chances are, no one else will, because you are just not that interesting.
To simplify it even more – an individual deserves the anonimity they enable themselves to have.
Even with facial recognition software, a person is unlikely to appear in dozens of street photographs to such an extend that they allow one to infer their identity – unless they themselves have already publicized their face and identity on their own.
Stand on any street corner of any city and you will be able to count numerous CCTV cameras, and no one cares. But an individual with a camera becomes a threat to privacy?
Hey Jamie – Do you do your own motion graphics and editing? I'm just starting my channel called ZaidMeetsWorld and I want to create beautiful mographs like yours but it is soooo time consuming and dampens my output quite a lot. Do you have any advice?
Best channel on YouTube
Got into photography a year ago found your channel and watched every single video
Me and the mrs have now set up a photography business and doing really well
I’m buying your presets
Keep up the fantastic work
For me, its not an issue of taking a photo, its an issue of posting the photo on the internet. If we all shoot film and only publish the work in books and galleries, would it be an issue at all?
Blimey 😮😮😮
Scary stuff.
Someone else touched on this in a comment about the restrictions on street photography in Germany. It's strict and pretty much a no-go taking photos of strangers on the street without their permission. As a member of public, I like these restrictions because I know that nobody will bother me with a camera taking unwanted photos, and if they do, swift legal action can be taken, but as a photographer, especially doing photojournalism work, it can make life quite complicated, but I simply don't publish photos where there could be a potential issue. I always felt it was a gross invasion of privacy to take upclose photos of strangers without their permission anyway. However, I think that facial recognision is an extremely dangerous tool, especially given that it is supposedly being rolled out in public in parts of London (Putney is said to have these cameras already) for surveilence purposes. The oportunities and dangers of missuse far outweigh the benefits of "proper" use, (especially when in the hands of government authorities) in my opinion, and I feel like this technology needs to be curtailed before masive damage is done.
Interesting video. Nothing wrong with adverts it's gear 'reviews' which are really just ads that are annoying (got moaned at by another creator when I hinted at this).
Facial recognition has its uses but it's definitely being abused (look at China). Phones that have some sort of facial recognition – who has access to that data? Worrying stuff. So to answer your question – yes if people start to realize what information (about them) can be found just from a photo.
I think you could be right. Our faces are already used as identification to unlock devices. I think its a matter of time. How ever governments are trying to loosen a lot of laws around privacy. so we might not be effected in the end.
Nice to see you posting video's again dude. Hope you have been good.
Excellent video Jamie, very well laid out and considered. There is a historic precedence here too as after the Paris commune in 1871 photography was widely used to recognise and punish those who were involved. The photographs had been originally created to celebrate the commune but the purpose of the images quickly changed after it was laid down. So I guess this was a historic example of how photography can be used, of course the scale to which this can be applied on now is a bit worrying.
As always, thoughtful and insightful. I'm not sure what the way forward is, but this certainly makes the landscape harder to navigate. As you say, both anonymity and documentation of public life are important.
Holly f__k, Jamie is back!
Street photography can be art, or a historical record. Facial recognition is an invasion of privacy.
Anonymity is a luxury of modern (urban) society. I grew up in a village in Ukraine 🇺🇦 with population of a few thousand villagers… And everybody knew each other by name and “which family you belong to” 😅 And it was pre-AI and pre-internet era!
Wow, very interesting. This is absolutely a `problem`. Lately ive been feeling candid portaraits arnt that ok, ive steared away from using reconizable subjects. More sillhouettes, blurred, backlit etc, but it hinderes the evolution of art, 100%. This is a really interesting video.
I think you do smoke weed 🤔
Posting from Germany. You cannot take pitures of anyone without getting first permission from that person. It has pros and cons. But it feels totally normal if you grew up in Germany. I always amazes me to see people in the US and other countries randomly taking videos or pictures of other people.
Excellent, thought provoking video. It is very much like the videos you used to make about ethical and artistic concerns. These were videos that got me to subscribe and stay. About the last year, it seemed your videos were much less interesting and very infrequent. A lot of promotion of your plug-ins. But this video is why I love and value your channel. Please, please keep doing more of the same. Could you be back? I certainly hope so.
Man, your view and thought process amazes me every time you upload.
Anything can be weaponized; it's not reasonable to bar the total existence of a good thing for its potential and rare misuse by a minority. I refuse to live in fear and worry, and I'd be holding responsible those who I elect and pay (through taxes) for my safety and privacy, on disallowing the unsavory incidents and dealing with the mechanisms through which bad actors may do harm.
You have some of the most cinematic videos on youtube
Weird a photographer would question if street photography should be legal or not because a website can tell you all the information about that person with that picture. You should be questioning if be that website should be legal or not.
Corporations and governments plant surveillance cameras all around public places. Individuals replace their door bells with Ring cameras and put up surveillance cameras that watch public spaces near their houses. Increasingly, corporations are trying to link all of these cameras together and have started to use machine learning to identify and potentially track people. Those are efforts I and others are working to stop. I really cannot worry about a street photographer taking photos of people in public places that may identify someone at a later date.
Two things 1) People were given an opportunity concerns about privacy. You have the 'If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about people & then people that are just lazy & freely give away their privacy for the sake of convenience.
2) Then you have companies that have mislead, manipulated & thrown their morals out the window for profits. Everyone has a price. – So here we are.
I'm not against technology. I am against not considering the ramifications on society or disregarding them for the sake of profits. The internet & social media were just thrown out to the world, with little to no laws.
I sometimes think about the children growing up today, and how every interaction will be recorded on some main frame forever. Owned by I.T. companies. They have no privacy. With all that information people can be easily controlled. Like politicians for example? What's the answer? I don't know, but what I do know is you can't treat a marathon runner's injured leg while he's still running.