Pixelated French Suburb

I’m sure the kids, and Wheatley, didn’t want the French police to see the pictures and then arrest people for their involvement in the riots. The thrust of the essay is that they are alienated youth venting their frustrations through crime.

France has very strong laws on invasion of privacy, at least by US standards. I don’t know for sure if they would be applicable here, but my guess is that they would be. If so they were a big factor.

as Neal says, there’s a big problem with the privacy law in France. it is becoming very hard to publish faces in France without a letter, unless you’re shooting a crowd or a public person (politician, star etc… policemen and firemen are not public people but generally fall under that category)

Magnum being basically french / american and publishing a lot in France, it’s deffinetely aplicable in this case.

i doubt it’s about arresting the people in the photos, as many of them aren’t doing anything illegal, and people around them are blurred too.

if HCB was alive today, he’d probably choose to be a bartender.

sad…

What a waste of a good series. It seems obvious to me that that Wheatly has the kids’ consent otherwise he couldn’t have snapped the pics in the first place. Why not just block out the bystanders?

Because he didn’t get the consent of their parents, I guess. If they are under 18, that is what matters.

and saying Ok at the beginning is not the same as signing a paper at the end, which is much harder to get… something that happens a lot around here.

a few months ago a familly won a law-suit against a magazine and a photographer AFTER they have signed for a release form. the court said something like: they could have changed their minds in the time between signing and publication, so the photographer should have asked again just before publishing.

the truth is that the familly just wanted more money. and that’s what it come down too, you ask for a waver signature, and they ask you “who do i get out of it?”

Doisneaux would be a bartender too…
G.

Unfortunately outside of the US (especially in Europe) there is a trend in the direction that Guilad mentions. If it continues, it will present a major challenge to photojournalism as we have known it in the last fifty years. Not that the US is perfect either, as the state of California has adopted anti-papparazzi legislation which can cramp the activities of photojournalists generally. It is a subject this community should watch with care.

Roughly: can’t take the pic of a minor without parent’s consent, can’t take pic of a minor who does
not have a tutor, of a cuffed criminal who has not yet been sentenced for his crime (presumption of innocence), of
a victim of a crime, or of Brad Pit with his pants down (a public person engaged in a private activity).
People are the owners of their image, and even after signing a waiver, can actually choose to change their minds.

http://www.photographie.com/?pubid=100473

Actually, I think(?) you can take all the pictures you want. You just can’t publish them.

Olivier, Thanks for the great link.
you forgot to mention you can’t take pictures of buildings anymore without asking their architect, and the lighting designer if it’s a public building. (ie the Eiffel Tower)
and in the “Volvic” mineral water case… even volcanos!!!
it is becoming completely ridiculous. worst part is that there’s almost no point to make people sign anything even if you were going to, since they can retract without notifying you, after signing.

Guilad, I thought the “I hereby irrecovarably give such and such rights” release forms were unretractable after signing.

“I hereby irrecovarably give such and such rights” just could ,in a French court, stand
as proof that the piece of paper it was printed on, wasn’t on fire (has to be notorized first)…

As Guilad also mentioned, you cannot take pics of most buildings without the architect’s
consent, and/or sometimes cannot even take photos FROM the same buildings.
Sometimes, buildings CAN be photographed, with prior authorization providing it is not
for commercial use.
A profo can easily be spotted because he/she uses a tripod.
Get that Manfroto out of the bag and see how long it takes for someone to come talk to you.

To get that thread back on track, you can also look at the essay from Alexandra Boulat on teh VII
website. She didn’t mask the faces.

It’s great taking pictures in Cambodia… NO ONE says no to being photographed unless he is gambling while talking to a prostitute and carrying a gun.

Nevertheless, here also there are situation where it is fair and decent to avoid having people being identified, and there are other possibilities than pixellisation to hide the identity of people. I had to do that, and didn’t mind doing it, just recently with a story on trafficked children and repatriated illegal migrants (see ‘Cambodia IOM Beggars Village’ on my website http://www.johnvink.com/).

Having said that, the conditions I worked in were certainly MUCH easier than those Simon was in. I can very well imagine that 1/he promised the guys he photographed they wouldn’t be recognisable (otherwise there would have been a cheap M6 for sale somewhere around Blois…) and he kept his word, and 2/he wants to make sure he won’t have to pay huge amounts of money to parents who, if their child was recognisable, would have been given a good opportunity to cash in through the French judicial system. Sort of payback time for having had to live in a neighborhood like that for the last 20 years…

And anyhow… The story is strong enough, difficult enough, and photographed well enough that I can live with that pixelisation. I don’t feel it does diminish the quality of the work.

actually John, everybody is blurred in the photos, not just the kids.

the discussion is not about the quality of the reportage, it’s answering a question asked by Michael. however, i think the reportage is really not that great, except for a few great shots. with many different stories done about the banlieus in the past few weeks, there is some amazing stuff out there. i personally think the pixelization does hurt the strength of the photos.

(and i thought gambling while pointing a gun at a prostitute was the favorite pose for photos in cambodia…)

G.

Well Guilad, Michael is asking several questions…

‘Or is that his new artistic technique?’
Sometimes using blurring pixels are used as an artistic technique. See Carl Dekeyzer’s job on a detention center for minors in Belgium. I guess in Simon’s case it is only addressing legal issues.

‘What’s going on here?’
A conflict between the ‘droit à l’image’ (any decent translation in English for this concept?) and the right to inform.

‘Did these people ask not to be photographed?’

That’s VERY likely.

’ Is there a legal issue?’
Yes, there is, and some of you have already answered that in this thread.

But ok, sorry, I am not aware of everything that’s out there (you know, still that lousy dial-up connection). I am sure other people are working on those issues, hoping (for them) that they are aware of legal issues, of identification problems and that they find other solutions to preserve the anonimity of those who want to stay anonimous or of those who have to stay unidentifiable. So what I wrote was trying to give an answer to Michael’s latest question: ‘Any thoughts?’

So I’ll elaborate a little more. Of course I’d rather not see blurring pixels on photographs because of potential legal issues, and of course the situation in France regarding ‘le droit à l’image’ or in some other overly protective countries is a permanent threat to the freedom of expression.

But on the other hand there ARE people in compromising situations that you don’t want to put into trouble. This overrules the fear of being in trouble yourself for legal matters. So you would pixelise (or find another way to hide identities) to protect those you photograph but not to protect yourself. The problem is that the judges in France don’t even take into consideration if the situation was compromising or not, and that the word is out there that good money can be made that way.

So what do you do? These stories have to be told, even at the expense of a few pixelisations sometimes. Agreed, if it is without pixelisation it’s better, but in this case even more complicated.

Interesting. I didnt think the pixelation was so obtrusive, and I could plainly make out the features of everyone. I thought the empty landscapes in the panoramic shots at the end were among the most expressive of the sequence. Doesnt surprise me at all that the kids feel alienated, that is what project housing always ends up doing to people.

I think; There is nothing wrong with blurring faces as photography must pay respect to people who don’t want to be photographed or not to be in frame.

However, this story reminded me Eugene Richard’s book “Cocaine True, Cocaine Blue”. As far as I know, Eugene Richards had signed release form from people whom he photographed. Please, correct me if I am wrong on this.

I thought that why didn’t Simon get signed permission from this people, which I believe would be more ethical and respectful. It seems to me that he spent some time with these teenagers.

Olivier: I know Boulat’s series, that’s one of the reasons I was so piqued by Wheatley’s. The topic is so similar yet the results differ greatly i.e. these pixels. Is VII expecting a lawsuit?

Can he publish the pics in other countries without the pixelation?

Trying to answer the original questions:

Since Simon never blurred faces while shooting teens and/or drug addicts in Amsterdam and the UK, I would rule out the artistic bit.
BTW, if you have not listened to Simon’s interview by LS Martin Fuchs, you can find it here: http://www.newyorkphotoblog.com/blog/interview_simon_wheatley.html
Some of it seems relevant to this thread.

IMHO there is a lot more to this than just “droit a l’image”, but it is all related to legal matters.
The decision to blur everyone’s face might also have come from Magnum’s lawyers, as the agency is of course liable.

Starting with my $0.02 translation attempt (all disclaimers apply, yadiyadiya)
“Le droit à l’image” is the prerogative of a person to veto the diffusion of her image, as she retains exclusive rights to her own representation.

FYI, France has dropped 25 places over the last 5 years in the RSF freedom of the press ranking system (37th now). Even if everyone had signed a waiver, Magnum could still be nailed under French law, for showing minors in a “diminished” situation or the “depiction of a crime” without masking the faces. That would also open a door for the police who could ask to disclose the sources of the photos, and compromise the folks in the projects (acc. to RSF, has happened 8 times last year).

Bottom line is that the diffusion of any image that the FR government finds unpleasant CAN be stopped. “Le Monde” brought 10 famous photos to the justice department, and had the top dog comment on what can legally be printed. If you read French, this is priceless:
http://www.photographie.com/magazine/publication/0002-100473/fr/Dehesdin.html

Except for the old lady and another bystander, I imagine that everyone was willing to have their picture taken. Folks with guns probably asked to have their face blurred, but I would bet most didn’t even care.
Filming with cell phones to put it on youtube is the rage these days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rZNdcB5vg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNW47Kh1QBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc6Ab4PH798

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BUux2fk21c

part of the law also says that you can’t publish a photo of a person that is recognizable by HIMSELF and his entourage. so even pixelated, blurred and whatever you want to do, you’d be able to recognize yourself or your familly.

just like the case of the back of the naked woman in the Paris terror attacks.

i mourn the death of photojournalism in France.

G.

john: i’d probably translate Le droit à l’image as a kind of self-agency: ownership of self, ownership of your appearance, liberte in the most existential sense ;)): “right to self, right to appearance, right to own yourself” ;)))))…(i thought my son had right to my image), the argument (and let’s face is, its a typically french existential argument) that a person is sole owner of not only their image and not the person “translating” that image (photographer) but the “uses/distributions/copyright/ancillary sextape-on-the-web proceeds” to your image (face/facsimilie of self), etc…;))))…although, born (i hope) to protect people from exploitation, the problem is that the logic in this kind of thinking is really Orwellian: we are part of a world in which others experience self and the other through contact: primarily sight!…we’re not bloody moles and we know the world primarily through sensorial experience: for example, i know when Guilad see’s me, he’s gonna think: “damn, that’ photographer’s hot”, and i cant stop him: he has also right to the autonomy of reaction (whereby others normally think, when they see me, “damn, that guy’s pretty dumpy” .;)))))>….we are who we are but we cannot, nor shall we ever be, the arbiter of WHO WE ARE OR WHAT WE LOOK LIKE….

Im with Guilad: its a sad, profoundly sad day when this kind of logic and monkeying is uses in the name of protection….its not photography’s problem (although, fuck if the ubiquity of the camera hasnt also hurt, but its not by place to deem which photographer (pro or dad with the family cellphone/cybershot) is more essential….;))))

…funny, in a country home to Lacan, Barthes and Derrida, it’s the kind of ironic, given that French philosophers, Linguists, Sociologists, Literary Critics have deconstructed and re-arranged Cognito ERgo S to the point that a, for example, a writer’s work is not the writer’s work but an an paradoxical twist: a signifying sign of one person’s experience (the reader)miraculously de-coded/encoded (written) by an arbitrating 2nd party (the writer)…the meaning of the words i’ve just written (above) can really only be discerned/known/signified/understood by you (dear reader)…;))))))…using the logic of french analytic thought, really the ownership of the image of someone SHOULD be the photographer, because really, we’re all a bunch of signs (punctums in a grand stadium) for de-coding: does the Academie Franc. know about the recent rullings?? ;)))))))…..

one irony about photography: we are NOT veiled in this waking life…nor in our society …i havent covered my face since i tried to berate Derrida over a bottle of Absinthe and was mercilessly carried off to Clichy ;))))).(oh, and there was that time when i was 12 and wore my bed sheets as a ghost for halloween, but since then, I dont actively recall every covering my face, or seeing another’s face covered: including those hideous Sars-masks so prevalent 3 years ago in Toronto)…;)))

..society (judges or another) does not have the liberty of preventing my sight (that’s Orwellian),..my sight is an innate part of being a fucked-up part of this waking life… and so, for me, if a photographer chooses (sometimes importantly) to obscure faces, good for her, or better to put down the camera, it should not and CANNOT be mandated (what’s happening in france??) but given the nature of our selves (sensorial, seeing fuck-ups), we must and should LOOK…

if french court system believes that “pixelation” is a means to protect, than they’re even more lost than those punctum-inducing literary adroits…..

fuck, god save us from ourselves……

regarding the pixelation, didnt bother me, but as with Guilad, it made me sad…….

since when did we become a species so afraid of ourselves……

ps. my comments are not related to those who actively cover/protect themselves, either from cultural or religious belief!….hope that’s clear :)))…cheers, bob

@Michael:
IIRC Boulat’s essay does not show any illegal activity, so she only has to be worried about the “droit a l’image” bit, and does not need to worry about the depictiion of a crime. Even if she didn;t get release forms, I doubt she has much to worry about, and would probably be protected by the concept of “implicit consent”.
In any event, after learning a bit about how justice works in FRance, there is no doubt in my mind that someone from the ‘burbs would not got far with a "droit a l’image claim". “Punitive dammages” in FR are no match for US standards anyways.

Just for completeness, Wheatley just posted an item to the magnum blog, partially about this subject and mentioning this very thread. http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2007/03/pixelated_youth.html

Thanks, it’s interesting. He confirms what Guilad and others above say about legal difficulties, and the sadness over the need for him to do this in the first place. I posted this comment which is how I currently feel about it:

Hi Simon, it’s interesting to hear your comments about the pixelation. The Blois pictures are hard to connect to because of it. Looking at the first pic up top there — are there welling tears in his eyes? A little sneer maybe? All the slight subtlties of expression and attitude are not available to us viewers. I don’t blame you for this of course, you do what you have to do. It’s just difficult to participate and understand what’s going on there. The necessity for this seems like another version of “kill the messenger”. Thanks, Michael.

I still have one legal question though: can he publish these pics un-pixelated in another country under different laws without fear of reprival? Say in Cambodia, where as John V. says no one worries about privacy etc….?

Wouldn’t be interesting if photographers refrained from taking photographs of politicians during election years and all the other public figures who depend on the free exposure. A kind of general strike that seems so prevalent in France,,, What would magazines and newspaper do without those images? Perhaps it would spur reforms and loosen laws a tad. Just a thought.

Following up on Michael’s comment, does putting the photos on the internet (whether a web gallery on your own site, or a blog, or a web mag like BlueEyes) count as publication? And in which country? For example, if I put some Paris street shots (some showing faces, kids, or, worse apparently, the Eiffel Tower) online, could the argument be made that that is a publication viewable in France and therefore subject to French law? Sorry if it’s a stupid question, but the lines don’t seem so clear.

Bill,

On top of that, I wonder if the French government can really follow through on any ‘online publishing’, since there is no way they can prosecute if you leave the country and upload after. I mean, besides barring a return visit, they can’t take it down nor can they do anything practical.

Well, right, good point. Just trying to establish the principles in full. Though since some of my wife’s family live in Paris, it’s not a completely abstract problem ;) For anyone interested, a selection of my recent Paris pics are here:

http://homepage.mac.com/billcrandall1/paris/

There are only 3-4 that might be problem (one is of my sister-in-law holding my baby, so that one’s ok ;). Most seem innocuous to me, but I suppose this is the kind of work that is essentially off-limits now? At least if you’re trying to publish in France?

The french legal concept of “droit à l’image” has been explained above as well as the nonsense of several suits in which photographers were prosecuted and fined. Fortunatelly in the last 2-3 years, common sense is taking the advantage and French judges now try to evaluate if the picture is really harming the person showed on the picture. Most of the recent trials have exonarated the photographers suited.
As far as I am concerned, though I don’t bother to ask people I shoot to sign authorization of publication, I don’t blur their faces. I have only done it once for a picture of a young man handcuffed by police (during the riots which happened last year in Paris after the first employement contract law was voted).
In my opinion, pixelated faces was not needed for Simon’s pictures but I understand his choice (and Magnum’s) of carefulness.