'Street photographer' taking photos of people discreetly in coffee shop

[OrcinusOrca]

I am quite frustrated about a situation earlier and I don't know if I just need a grip!

Sat in a well known coffee chain earlier. Noticed someone taking photos but very discreetly on a Nikon. I wasn't certain at first but kept watching and definitely taking photos. Photos included children sat with their DM a few tables away, and then of a woman's arse (she was wearing a dress, photographer was sat on a low down sofa and had camera on their lap).

I kept meeting eye contact and the photographer put their camera down** after the second or third time. They then were (I suspect) taking photos on a mobile phone a little while after. I didn't feel comfortable saying anything directly, but I left what was left in my drink and went to speak to someone behind the counter. They told me this person is a street photographer and there is nothing they can do. 'They're an idiot' but very friendly and I could go and ask them not to take photos of me and they should oblige. I told them about the woman in a dress and they just said they can't do anything about it.

I still didn't feel comfortable confronting the photographer for a couple of reasons, so I just left it. I think what bothered me the most was the fact that they were taking photos so discreetly, and that they stopped after we met eyes a couple of times. I feel like if they stood up and announced what they were doing and said 'let me know if you want to opt out', a lot of people would have.

AIBU to be bothered by this?

The coffee shop staff, by the sound of it, know the photographer and are aware that the photographer is engaged in a legitimate project.
As PP have said, street photography is a valid art form and a fascinating social record. A lot of the opposition to it seems to come from people who think they are incredibly important and everyone will recognise them when, to a street photographer, they are just randoms.

If it's in a coffee shop it's not street photography, it's taking photos on private property. The photographer should have asked permission from the coffee shop owner and quite possibly displayed a notice about photography taking place if they are a professional.

I would have said really loudly do you have permission to take pictures of those children. Shame the buggers. It’s not ok. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it ok.

This photos is from London in the 1930's. It is so interesting, it documents every day life of ordinary people. I'm pretty sure the photographer didnt get called a pervert for taking it. Our society would be much poorer if we banned people taking pictures.

@kaytee I’ve never taken photos of children though mind you...

Mostly just something like a man walking a dog on a beach(distance shot) that looked really peaceful and tranquil and a couple falling asleep on the train together holding hands... I won’t do it anymore as my camera reel is only full of my own baby now - have little interest in anything/one else.

But @sofizzy I’m sure it wasn’t taken in a covert manner

Actually, I forgot to mention, it morphs old and new photos together, from 1930s and today. It's amazing

@Sofizzy that's completely different. No one is identifiable and they're in public rather than a private place (coffee shop). The photograph isn't really of anyone, it's of the street.

Not really fandoms if having the photos of them published is a safeguarding risk.

@TheGateauIsInTheChateau I think photographs from a distance are different as presumably the person isn't clearly identifiable.

You don't know what the pictures the op is talking about were of. She said one of the woman was from behind, so probably not identifiable.
I just think screaming Pervert is way OTT.

But if the coffee shop were not happy with it, they should have asked them.to.move

Alpacanorange - totally agree and this thread highlights yet another giant loophole in the law. In most professions, it’s a legal requirement to have data protection policies in place and to be a member of the ICO - basically, if photos were taken without prior written consent, alot of businesses and individuals would be in serious trouble.
How is it then, in this case, that an individual can take photos of anyone without any form of consent what so ever!?
Bruffin - YOU are automatically thinking this is what is being thought - as the photographers intentions can not be proven, this is more to do with consent! They may have had unpleasant intentions, they may not...it’s irrelevant in regards to consent.

As the cafe is private property the photographer is on somewhat shaky ground. I occasionally take my camera out and about for some street photography. It’s perfectly legal here in public spaces. When I go abroad I always make sure I check the legal position on street photography before I go so I know what’s ok and what’s not. If he’s a professional then I think there are restrictions on publishing and using photos commercially if the people featured are identifiable. I’m just a hobbyist and don’t publish my pictures so I’m not that sure of the specifics.

What are thinking then if they are calling someone creepy other than that they are creepy.

It is (generally) legal for the photographer to take photographs in a public place.
It is legal for you to take photographs of the photographer.
It is legal for you to stand in front of the camera lens, blocking the view, when in a public place.

The point however being a cafe is not a public place. The freehold is owned by the free holder and the shop probably has a lease and can decide what happens on its premises eg some clubs ban cameras for privacy reasons; our old gym also banned them in the changing rooms (a big brother star I've never hard of was in there regularly which I assume was the reason rather than perverts taking pictures of little girls). In a cafe someone might have decided to meet their lover or whatever or may just amazingly want a quiet drink without being photographed.

in the street in England it depends on the situation - a super model going to a narcotics anonymous meeting (whilst in street) could not be photographed - that connection was private and rightly so in my view. So it is not a simple issue that you can photograph everything and everyone out and about even in public but usually you're okay. What you are then allowed to do withthe image is a separate and equally complicated matter which is why those filming will often have people sign individual consents. There was a case when Ali G's team got consents but those consents did not really say the subjects would look like utter morons when filmed so it was about whether they gave an informed consent and really understood what they were getting into.

Really weird and inappropriate but re: the woman's bum, is it possible they were taking soft focus photos of stuff on their table?

Like a cup with a blurred coffee shop background? I'm sure it's entirely possible a man could be a creep and taking odd but equally that could be an explanation

I suppose the kind of classic/journalistic street photography like a P.O. has posted is actually pretty blatant at the time as someone has to be stood there with a camera to get it. Covert, identifiable photography in the internet age is a bit different really. I like street photography but I wouldn’t like to have a picture of me clandestinely taken in a cafe.

I am in full view on a google street view pic on the seafront, at a certain holiday resort in the UK. (Won't say which one obviously!)

I am looking straight at the google-car camera. From about 30 feet away, my face is not blurred out, but 25 feet away (and closer) my face is blurred out.

Doesn't bother me tbh.

Not sure if I'd be too happy if someone was pointing a camera at me if I had kids with me though. Legal or not, I would be wondering where the photos were going to end up.

Sunsunsunsunsun - Is it ironic? Who thinks that is socially acceptable and the other isn’t? I don’t think either are socially acceptable! But have to say, before the job I am in now where I have to attend safeguarding courses every year, including the issues surrounding photography and having to hear about horrific case studies - maybe I wouldn’t have this strong opinion. Ignorance is bliss...

For anyone doubting how I know one photo was of was of a lady's arse, I was facing a wall and the photographer was facing into the coffee shop, so we would have been looking at each other if I was three seats further along. The camera was on the person's lap and they were staying in their seated position and moving the camera at different angles which is what I was labelling as discreet photo taking, and so I could see what the image was of on the screen of the camera. Lady was wearing a bright dress so there was no mistaking it.

We have fostered children in my wider family, and so that will cloud my judgement a bit. No photos of them are allowed to go on social media, no consent forms signed at their schools for them to be in publications etc. I am probably pre programmed to not take photos of children I don't know in that sense.

If I knew someone was taking photos in a coffee shop I would choose not to be in there. I was the victim of a very serious crime and have little/no social media presence. I have changed my name twice in 10 years to drop off the radar from certain circles to avoid being found. I really don't want images of me being captured and shared. This probably clouds my judgement too. I wasn't sure if I was being OTT in feeling as uncomfortable as I did. Especially as the staff didn't seem concerned, even by the arse photo.

We have a photography book published in the 1950s I think ( certainly vintage) called “ Shots from the hip” which really was my introduction to this discrete form of photography where the camera is not raised to the face but held low. I’m not a photographer but I love candid street shots - often with a blurred feel or just the lower torso in the frame. Although I used it quite a bit in places like Marrakech and in London on the South Bank it does feel a bit weird to be sitting in a coffee shops - especially that he/ she was obviously spotted an persisted. I would have been too embarrassed. I wonder if this person is even a professional photographer - they might just do it as a hobby. ( in which case the photos may appear on Flickr or photo sharing site but not necessarily displayed in a gallery / publication) I’m not sure if that makes it better or worse?

I don't know anyone who would specifically put a stranger in their photo as the main person. you might get a few at the edges but on the whole you try really hard to get no one on the shot except your family because you respect their privacy. Most people are like that and you don't then upload it on line unless you have consent of everyone on the image.