Ethics of using a game camera

[VultureChow]

Ears are personally identifiable information. Voice is. Gait will be.

Consider this: does BM need more publicity? Or does it need more one to one personal reach out to find new attendees and set expectations? I bet anyone who has participated over a span of years would have an opinion on that.

So frankly I would ban any publication of images or video from now on. It would not kill the event, and it might save it.

Besides the fact that a ban would be completely unrealistic, photography is a legitimate art at an art festival and can absolutely add to the experience. There are already considerable limits on commercial photography.

Also, publicity is hardly the sole fault of photography. We're back to a discussion where we ban behavior or types of art because it brings the wrong kind of people or attention to the event.

[GreyCoyote]

I see little or no difference between what VC is suggesting to do than the drone shots over BRC or the time-lapse videos that abound over YouTube or Vimeo. Effectively, what is the difference?

I would initially argue there is not a lot of difference in principle, but the reality is a time-lapse emphasizes stationary things and tends to fuzz-out people. And as to drone shots... Well... Lets just say its a good thing they outlawed guns at BM many years ago because those damned things just scream "skeet!" to me.

[Lonesomebri]

.
Are ye daft, lady?!
The Creepy Factor is off the scale.
I see the problem specifically as A CAMERA WITHOUT A PERSON HOLDING IT.

As a professional photographer in RL (one of my many hats), Elliot nailed it.

Cameras on drones? Comments? The person actually asking about doing game-shots is creepy, yet the fly boys are what?

(answer- drones are cool so they get a pass.)

Put signs on either side saying "Your image may be recorded for Arts sake". Has anyone ever even looked at those rigs the pros have out there? Maybe those lens telepathically ask permission...

[VultureChow]

I like to think he was referring to the idea as creepy and not the person behind it.

I am pretty creepy, though.

[GreyCoyote]

Funny story: a couple of years ago this cute little pixie was wandering around the crowd before the Critical Tits parade. She was wearing leather boots and nothing else except a camera. She was slinking around taking pictures of the crowd. When we inquired as to what she was up to, she grinned massively and said "whale watching!". Handed us a card with a URL on it.

When I got home I looked up the URL. It was a website composed solely of pictures of fat old men in straw hats and luau shirts toting cameras and drooling like perverts. She even had cute scientific labels for some of them.

Touche!!!

[Lonesomebri]

Taking pictures of people by surprise while they check out your art, inorder to have some personal recorded memory of the event is not creepy.

Drones are a total invasion of privacy with no way of asking permission for shots. Professional photographers at the event do far more whatever negative is implied against this OP idea. Anyway, Cops digging thru my privates is creepy, but that's another argument, with convenient twists and turns in the logic for and against.

[VultureChow]

Funny story: a couple of years ago this cute little pixie was wandering around the crowd before the Critical Tits parade. She was wearing leather boots and nothing else except a camera. She was slinking around taking pictures of the crowd. When we inquired as to what she was up to, she grinned massively and said "whale watching!". Handed us a card with a URL on it.

When I got home I looked up the URL. It was a website composed solely of pictures of fat old men in straw hats and luau shirts toting cameras and drooling like perverts. She even had cute scientific labels for some of them.

Touche!!!

That's spectacular.

[some seeing eye]

Even the most pro-photography interpretation of the law in the US is that it is legal to take (!) a photograph, but there are specific limits on publishing it. In Europe the laws are stricter.

Photography has been considered stealing souls. Official policy is that you are supposed to ask if you can steal people's souls at BM.

Publishing peoples photos or videos without permission against current legal principals does not get a free pass for "art", or "free expression" for that matter.

There have been long and insightful threads on this.

I'm sure you are aware that some people are at risk in their employment for attending the event or losing children in custody battles. Does the photographer's voyeuristic pleasure or self promotion outweigh that? No.

[Lonesomebri]

The larger the fish, the bigger the pass. I'm sure you are aware that professional photographers take photos at the event. And that is with the ok of the org. Those photos have a larger distribution, sometimes cover crowds with a resolution that individuals are individual. Ever seen one of those drones? I watched 4 cops help launch one. It had a camera, but I didn't notice if it was dropping release forms. It seems like the guys with big cameras, big connections, techy toys, etc. have little to worry about from the people sighting photo ethics here. Just the little person, easier game. Reminds me of the time a woman offered me a snow cone on the playa and as I went for it, I held up my cheap camera, we both smiled, and I took a shot. Then the "concerned" guy "keeping order" came over and told me I needed to always ask permission. The woman handed me the snow cone and we both rolled our eyes.

[VultureChow]

So again were back to personal use and where or if they are published. Printing them out and showing my family - OK. Publishing them on the internet - NOT OK. Password protected online archive - ???

I'm okay with those limitations, but is the very act of taking someone's photo without their permission unethical? BM guidelines say yes unless they are in a crowd. But hi-res crowd shots produce recognizable faces. Would taking and/or publishing unrecognizable shots be ok? Like just a hand touching my artwork? What if the artwork fills most of the frame and all you get is snippets of people walking up to it and bending down. Like a photo, the line looks quite distinct until you zoom in and the edges blur.

For the record, I'm leaning towards the tons of security cameras idea now with an opt-in button and absurdly long disclaimer saying that your picture will be taken and published if you press this button.

I might try it for a regional first though.

[GreyCoyote]

VC: How about your camera tree w/opt-in button, and a keyboard where they can type an email address to send the photo? Sort of a "hi mom!"... BUT, and here is the rub, you, the artist, get to pick the photo (which of course would have been taken in the "pre-pose" moments before a phony strobe went off). And maybe have some professional photobombers in the background for total mischief?

Totally opt-in. Totally legal. And fun. (delivery btw would be done off the playa after the event, and driven by the collected data to make it easy for you).

Just noodling here!

[VultureChow]

Yeah... The camera tree is totally happening now. My cougar skeleton is bleaching right now and then it has some drying to do, so I'm a bit stalled. I bet I could get some of those cameras gutted and rigged with LEDs in one weekend. Mount to a 12' 4x4 post and get a bunch of reflective warning signs.

Also, thanks for the term "camera tree"

[Elliot]

All right... ah... now.... The concept of "normal humans" comprises a very wide spectrum. For this discussion, I'm perhaps near one end of that spectrum. But I am a (frustratingly) complex person, and may have tentacles toward the other end. On that basis....

I would have no problem with you showing clandestine photos of me to your family within the home. No skin off my nose (if we ignore the possibility that your uncle may be my fundamentalist-moralistic employer).

But the idea of taking clandestine photos in the first place is Wrong. This is a philosophical concept as much as a practical one:
It may cause no skin off my nose, but I don't know that.
And if I don't even know the picture is being taken, that is Majorly Wrong. That's what Stalin and Hitler and King Saud and such folks do.

I realize it will always be difficult to determine the line between "crowd" shots and "recognizable" shots. But as in many things, I feel we must err on the side of privacy.

[Eric]

Cameras on drones? Comments? The person actually asking about doing game-shots is creepy, yet the fly boys are what?

(answer- drones are cool so they get a pass.)

But the idea of taking clandestine photos in the first place is Wrong. This is a philosophical concept as much as a practical one:
It may cause no skin off my nose, but I don't know that.
And if I don't even know the picture is being taken, that is Majorly Wrong. That's what Stalin and Hitler and King Saud and such folks do.

Again, I think Elliot nailed it. You know the drones are there - you look up & they're visibly flying around. It's not a hidden camera secretly taking pictures. I'm still torn on the drones - I love some of the shots & videos that are coming from them, but they're a definitely safety issue flying in heavily populated areas, and there is still the fact that they can be off in the distance & get you in a shot (but so can a person standing on the Man or a tall piece of art). For the original post, it's the secretive part of the equation that gives me pause - the drones operators aren't going out of their way to try to be hidden, to knowingly catch people unawares, but the original concept was all about that exact idea.

Now, the "tower of broken surveillance camera's" idea - that's funny, and art.

[VultureChow]

So is the "opt in" button okay if it clearly labeled that a picture will be taken of you and for what purposes it will be used?

[Savannah]

So is the "opt in" button okay if it clearly labeled that a picture will be taken of you and for what purposes it will be used?

Now that you've had some chance to brainstorm, hear feedback, winnow your idea down to what you want, etc, this is probably the point at which you can probably write [email protected] and ask 'em. But it sounds a heck of a lot more consent-y this way, and Iove the artistic turn this is taking (something that just seems to happen when you're around . . . )


. . . For the record, I'm against having my picture taken at a recognizable distance when I'm not aware of it, but if asked, I usually say yes. I don't like my photo posted online without my knowledge, but I'm not surprised anymore when it happens, just irked. (Once a photo is taken, I know that the display of it will be hard to control, so my giving permission in the first place becomes all the more important.)

I'm touched (and surprised) when people are kind enough to ask if they can post a photo. Turtleburp still does that. It's getting to be a rare courtesy.

[Eric]

So is the "opt in" button okay if it clearly labeled that a picture will be taken of you and for what purposes it will be used?

I'd write press@ just to be sure, but I think that's pretty clear & would be allowed. I'd certainly have no problem with it, but the final arbiter is above my pay grade

[Elliot]

So is the "opt in" button okay if it clearly labeled that a picture will be taken of you and for what purposes it will be used?

That sounds fine to me.

[theCryptofishist]

That's what Stalin and Hitler and King Saud and such folks do.

I don't think we have to go so far back in time or so far away to find examples. This week, this country--all the fucking time.

[theCryptofishist]

I guess I secretly find the original idea funny. I think it transforms the relationship between human and animal--what happens when we become the game? (Apart from serial killers? or just an expansion of same?) Does it in some way replicate the experience of being in a hyper-commercial society where corporations have us under surveillance all the time in order to sell us things? Are we in some sense as furtive and unseen as the mountain lion?
Of course this is an extremely abstract notion to me because (a) it's only November, and (b) I'm not attending in 2014, and maybe never again.

[Elderberry]

Reading this thread reminds me of a quote: "It's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission."

[Lonesomebri]

That's what Stalin and Hitler and King Saud and such folks do.

Ha, Hitler, or on any street in America.... And we all know that if only someone had killed Hitler so much pain and suffering could have been avoided. Vulture, the law and order types are setting up the gallows, comparing a game-cam to genocidal maniacs....but it's for the good of everyone....sort of like the excuse used by Hitler and Stalin and Disney.

[Odie]

Oh good, did I hear paparazzi time, I am excited over this one or are my paparazzi rights being taken away.

[Lonesomebri]

I realize that for good reason the game-cam is not allowed by the event unless people know about the photo and can opt out. Signs indicating that images are being taken, a person could then avoid that area, does that. I love how stuff like this goes, how people think, synthesisism. My own opinion is that taking peoples photos without them knowing it is bad, unless you are Allen Funt. Personally, though, I only like pictures of myself that I don’t know were taken. The art angle of this idea is great, I love it, as Fishy said. I believe all professional photography should be banned, which would take a bite out of losing privacy more than some game-cam is gonna cost. But that ain't gonna happen. Why? I do think it funny how I see these pervs out there with accreditation and lenses the size of an oil can, drones are excused because we should be able to adjust ourselves to avoid that air-born camera we are guilty of seeing, and here is a person asking for guidance, open to direction, asking for criticism, and the weight of the judgment that falls on them, the cat who’s gonna adjust…. I love this type of performance art. All the worlds a stage....

[GreyCoyote]

So is the "opt in" button okay if it clearly labeled that a picture will be taken of you and for what purposes it will be used?

I personally find the opt-in strategy to be bulletproof and completely beyond reproach.. The person WANTS THE PICTURE. And for me that is key. Press the button and get your wish. Dont want a picture? Then simply smile and move on without a picture being taken. No harm done. Heck, even if the opt-in and then change their mind later, you can always delete the photo and no harm is done. It puts the person in complete control of their privacy and image.

Conversely, the opt-out ethos is fatally flawed. It means you have to do something affirmative just to KEEP your privacy. Fail to catch the opt-out sign, and you are automatically fair game. Not a good thing. Can the pervo with the 600 mm telephoto lens shooting you from 100 yards away with a tiny little opt-out placard (in 6 point Century Schoolbook type) now say "well, I gave them a chance to opt-out and they didnt, so its all fair game"?

So I'm lovin the opt-in motif!

[some seeing eye]

Don't employ wishful thinking, everybody does it, or it would be cool, for implied consent. Consent is consent. Lack of consent is not consent.

[trilobyte]

As I mentioned/quoted in my previous post, your responsibility is in obtaining permission before you take the photo or make the recording.

If you're calling it an art project, great. The internet is an awesome gallery, one in which hundreds, thousands, or even millions have the opportunity to view your work (look at the number of views that people get on their videos or likes on FB pages and other places out there). Register your project and follow the rules and respect the rights of the community (it's really troubling that you seem bent on finding ways around that).

The existence of this thread is sufficient evidence that whatever pics you take are not simply for your own personal use, that you intend them as part of a project for public display.

If you just want a bunch of pictures from Burning Man, of people you don't know or didn't have a personal interaction with, why bother with bringing a camera in the first place (let alone a game camera). There are hundreds of thousands of pictures from the event already on the internet, you don't know those people and didn't personally take those pictures either. Is there a specific reason that you want to take and display pictures without obtaining permission?

[VultureChow]

As I mentioned/quoted in my previous post, your responsibility is in obtaining permission before you take the photo or make the recording.

If you're calling it an art project, great. The internet is an awesome gallery, one in which hundreds, thousands, or even millions have the opportunity to view your work (look at the number of views that people get on their videos or likes on FB pages and other places out there). Register your project and follow the rules and respect the rights of the community (it's really troubling that you seem bent on finding ways around that).

The existence of this thread is sufficient evidence that whatever pics you take are not simply for your own personal use, that you intend them as part of a project for public display.

If you just want a bunch of pictures from Burning Man, of people you don't know or didn't have a personal interaction with, why bother with bringing a camera in the first place (let alone a game camera). There are hundreds of thousands of pictures from the event already on the internet, you don't know those people and didn't personally take those pictures either. Is there a specific reason that you want to take and display pictures without obtaining permission?

Easy Trilo, we've moved on to another project. As I said, the idea wasn't to just set it up in a random location, but rather by my art project so I could capture people looking at it. Perhaps a little narcissistic on my part, but my intentions were not to be unreservedly evil. People had two reactions: "Sounds fun!" and "Jesus Christ! What kind of creepy dictator are you?" As a famous mayor once said, "Very well, if that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow."


Now, on to the new camera tree project, how stable is a 4x4 with 2 feet sunk in the playa? Anyone have any brilliant ideas for a stable trunk to my camera tree that wouldn't need guy lines?

[Drawingablank]

How about creating a booth, hang signs on it that say have your photo taken with a mountain lion (or whatever), and when they walk in the game camera triggers. Those things also have a programmable delay between shots that might be interesting to play with and are probably also available with night vision.

You could have a sign that explains what you are doing with the photos, and even put a URL on stickers or something for them to take. Visitors could then go there in a few weeks later and download their photo.

[DrYes]

Totally opt-in. Totally legal.

I don't think legal really comes into this if we're talking non-commercial work. There's nothing illegal about photographing people at BM without their permission and putting those photos online. You're a jerk if you do it, and it's against Burning Man's rules, but it's legal to do it.