Photography and Ethics

An exploration of some issues surrounding photography, ethics and my own practice.

I am a street photographer. I shoot candids without asking permission and without engaging with my subject. I take pictures of other people's children; the old, the displaced and the vulnerable. If I came across a terrible accident, I would probably shoot first and help afterwards (but I have yet to put that one to the test). What sort of photographer does that make me? Is this approach a legitimate one? Would I get better images if I changed my tactics?

These questions have formed the basis of my exploration of ethics and photography. Whilst I have an intrinsic interest in ethical issues (I try to eat, shop, travel and bank ethically, but I'm not very good at it) I have felt more and more drawn towards ethics in photography as the nature of what I shoot is inescapably associated with (un)ethical practices in both the professional and amateur domains.

Here is an example:

(C) Helen Williams 2005

This photograph of a young child was taken in Trafalgar Square, London. Recently, there has been much consternation about photographing in public spaces, and in particular taking pictures of children. Trafalgar Square became, for a while, the locus for debate when London Mayor Ken Livingstone attempted to raise parents' awareness of potential paedophilic activity by the posting of notices around Trafalgar Square and other London attractions. The notices were to advise parents and carers to be on the lookout for people using digital cameras to take photographs, as they might be collecting images for use on the Internet in child-abuse rings.

Following a huge backlash from the photographic community, with the support of several MPs, (Austin Mitchell MP - who chairs the Parliamentary All-Party Photography Group - branded the move 'political correctness gone mad') Mr. Livingstone decided that the notices were perhaps not the most diplomatic method of dealing with this issue and the idea was abandoned. Indeed, the mayor's office issued the following statement:

"...All that is being asked is that parents, carers and others in responsible positions to be vigilant against the small minority of individuals who might misuse digital technology."

Quite why this activity is restricted to digital photographers is beyond me - has Mr. Livingstone not heard of scanners?

A quick skirt around the online photographic discussion forums and printed magazines will reveal that this issue is still live and kicking - there are several stories of photographers being approached, challenged and even arrested on grounds of paedophilic or terrorist-like activities. Oh dear.

So what are the ethical issues here? There is the freedom to photograph debate, the right to privacy in public spaces debate, even the all (male) photographers are perverts or terrorists debate, but at the heart of all these is the question of personal morality: the ethical stance any photographer must take when deciding whether or not it is right to press the shutter.

I took the photograph of the child in Trafalgar Square (above) quite deliberately in order to push my luck - just because I can't, if you like. When I was walking around the square I did indeed feel as if I was doing something which looked suspicious and I had my explanations well-rehearsed. ("I'm doing research into the ethics of photographing candids... I'm an officer of my local photographic society look, here's my card..." and such like.) Alas, no-one challenged me. Was this because I was lucky, or because I am female and therefore 'not a pervert'? Hmm...

Other people on the square that day were not so fortunate:

(C) Helen Williams 2005

page two>>>