Ethics of using a game camera

[VultureChow]

I've been thinking about setting up a game camera at the burn for a while. (Basically a game camera is used to spot deer and other animals at a particular feeding site so hunters can pick out good hunting spots. Biologists use them too for animal surveys) I never take photos at the burn, regardless of whether I have a camera or not. This I figured might give me a way to actually take some.

It would essentially be taking pictures of people though without their knowledge. I want to set it up outside my monkey hut focused just beyond or on my art, to capture people coming up to look at it. I have zero commercial use for the pictures, but it would be fun to share them online.

Right, wrong, problematic? If I keep them for personal remembrance, is that okay? Is it just wrong to share them on the internet?

[GreyCoyote]

I like the idea of the "surprise" shots conceptually (for these could be humerous art itself), but I feel you need to very clearly disclose the presence of the camera BEFORE they get in-range. Personal use or not, its a picture, and some folks would prefer not to be photographed.

Personally, I would avoid your installation just because of the camera. You could have the most awesome art in the world and I would decline to get close to it. Why? Because how do I know your intentions are good? Why wouldn't someone bent on making trouble do exactly this in hope of catching (insert name of famous person) running around naked with "inappropriate" company? I guess I am strange that way, but others may feel the same. So this begs the question "is the camera worth it?"

I hope others weigh-in. This is an interesting question to me.

[lucky420]

I love this! I think a lot of people end up in photos on the net without their knowledge. As long as they're not nekkid and you're not going to tag them. I think it would be okay. There are thousands of BM pics out there...

[VultureChow]

I like the idea of the "surprise" shots conceptually (for these could be humerous art itself), but I feel you need to very clearly disclose the presence of the camera BEFORE they get in-range. Personal use or not, its a picture, and some folks would prefer not to be photographed.

Personally, I would avoid your installation just because of the camera. You could have the most awesome art in the world and I would decline to get close to it. Why? Because how do I know your intentions are good? Why wouldn't someone bent on making trouble do exactly this in hope of catching (insert name of famous person) running around naked with "inappropriate" company? I guess I am strange that way, but others may feel the same. So this begs the question "is the camera worth it?"

I hope others weigh-in. This is an interesting question to me.

This was my concern. I'm not planning on publishing these in any significant way, just a flickr set that I could link to here. I'm not sure that it's any different than some of the videos that are shot and put on youtube. There are tons of candid shots of people at burning man, and while I guess it's possible that the professionals are all getting permission from their subjects, I can't imagine every yahoo with a camera goes up the the person meditating at the temple and asks to take their picture.

I would leave out nude or particularly unflattering shots, and or course take down any shots that people requested.

I'm clearly trying to convince myself that this is okay. Maybe I should peruse the actual BM guidelines on photography.

[trilobyte]

It is NOT okay without permission (crowd shots are the only area where permissions aren't required). If you want to be ethical, then not a single picture goes online until you obtain the permission of the person in the photo. Yes, the "professionals" ask permission before taking photos.

[some seeing eye]

I don't think you are taking into account automated facial recognition.

It has been resisted or used with varying degrees of opt in. But any image online is going to be around beyond any of today's policies. Today image search is based on tags and surrounding text. It is certainly not going to be limited to that in the future.

[VultureChow]

Thanks Trilo.

I think there's two ethical questions here. One is the actual taking of photographs without someone's permission. The other is publishing them.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, just trying to do this right. Maybe the answer is to keep them for myself and to just show my family and friends privately. That would be acceptable right? It really is for myself. As I said, I don't take photos, and to have some record would be nice.

Maybe the solution on the permission end of things is to keep a notebook with me and if I'm around when someone comes up and a picture is taken, ask them for permission and then mark the time the photo was taken.

[VultureChow]

I don't think you are taking into account automated facial recognition.

It has been resisted or used with varying degrees of opt in. But any image online is going to be around beyond any of today's policies. Today image search is based on tags and surrounding text. It is certainly not going to be limited to that in the future.

And yet another interesting point. If the person's face is not visible or a blur, is that okay?

And is a posed photo implicit permission for online posting? I mean we all do it, snap a picture at the M&G and then put it on this board. No one asks each member if it's okay to put it on the internet.

[trilobyte]

CIrcling back to add a link to this page - please read it carefully, and take note of this bullet point under the section n Photographer's rights and responsibilities (I'm underlining the key bits):

• You have the responsibility to be respectful to people you wish to record and to seek permission from them before recording their likeness or voice.

Contact [email protected] with any questions or clarifications regarding your project.

[VultureChow]

Thanks Trilo, that's the page I was looking for. I found the commercial photography page, but missed that one.

[GreyCoyote]

Facial recognition has already progressed to the point that it is used at public gatherings (sports events) as a tool to "assist" law enforcement in "monitoring" certain persons of interest. The retention and later use of that photograpic data is currently a subject working its way through the courts. Conversely, the immediate use of that data in an operational setting has already been permitted every time it has challenged. Its only a matter of time until the indefinite retention of photographic data is approved.

If I was gathering data on who-was-where-with-who-doing-what-and-when, and doing so with long-term intent, I cant think of a more statistically fertile hunting spot than TTITD.

Given my choice, I would make BM a camera-free event. Forever.

[VultureChow]

And yet crowd shots are unregulated, though I would argue that an expensive, high resolution camera in the hands of a professional could probably get a clearer shot of that face in a crowd than an automatic game camera or even a Polaroid.

I don't agree with banning the cameras. A) it's just completely unenforceable and B) some of the photos I've seen are art in of themselves. If we allow ear splitting music to penetrate into our private spaces (camps) with the understanding that they are art, then photography (while perhaps intrinsically intrusive to an event about immediacy) surely counts.

I guess I'm just trying to find a way to do this where I convince myself I'm not stepping too far over the line. The rather harsh line outlined on the official page gets stepped over constantly. People (even recognizable faces) are caught incidentally as people take pictures of an art installation. Guy posts his video of his ride through a dust storm online, and we all enjoy it.

[Dr. Pyro]

If we allow ear splitting music to penetrate into our private spaces (camps) with the understanding that they are art, then photography (while perhaps intrinsically intrusive to an event about immediacy) surely counts.

Maybe one of the most spot-on comments I've read on these threads in a long, long time.

[Elliot]

.
Are ye daft, lady?!

The Creepy Factor is off the scale.

I see the problem specifically as A CAMERA WITHOUT A PERSON HOLDING IT. You would have to set up giant billboards all over your camp and surrounding area stating "You Are Under Camera Surveillance And You Have No Way Of Ever Knowing What These Pictures Will Be Used For." (Which, of course, would fly like the proverbial lead balloon with your neighbors and passers-by. I'm guessing you would have BRC Rangers there to advice you inside of an hour.)

Alternatively, you would have to fence or tent the area completely in, and have everyone who enters sign a Model Release. (Of course, you would get a total of three visitors for the week.)

A surveillance camera at Burning Man?! This is the sort of stuff we go to BM to get away from.

[Elliot]

If we allow ear splitting music to penetrate into our private spaces (camps) with the understanding that they are art, then photography (while perhaps intrinsically intrusive to an event about immediacy) surely counts.

Maybe one of the most spot-on comments I've read on these threads in a long, long time.

Respectfully, my opinion is 180 degrees opposite.
While I am offended by excessively loud sound being inflicted on me, the generator of the sound has no potential to take my reaction with them for nefarious purposes.
A photograph of me is the complete opposite. The owner of the camera takes something of mine with them, to use for Gawd-Knows-What. And with an unmanned, automated camera! Preposterous.

[VultureChow]

Okay. New art project. Non functional security camera placed atop sign post. It scans back and forth and has a red blinking LED.

This sign is posted below:

If someone climbs up to take it down, a sticker on the outside explains that it is non-functional and the insides are stuffed with minature rubber duckies for the participant to take.

[Eric]

.
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.

[VultureChow]

Respectfully, my opinion is 180 degrees opposite.
While I am offended by excessively loud sound being inflicted on me, the generator of the sound has no potential to take my reaction with them for nefarious purposes.
A photograph of me is the complete opposite. The owner of the camera takes something of mine with them, to use for Gawd-Knows-What. And with an unmanned, automated camera! Preposterous.

Ignoring the game camera issue, your rights regarding photographers and your likeness are greater inside Black Rock City than outside. Remember, in a public space, anyone can take your photo for personal reasons. I have yet to see someone take a non-sexual photo of another person on the street and get prosecuted for it. (Actually I'm pretty sure the police have attempted to prosecute people for filming them, but I'd argue this is a different issue)

Inside the gates they're stating that video cameras have to be registered, and that the photographer should get your permission, not just to publish, but to actually take the photo.

When it comes to music, your rights inside the gates are less than outside. The sound levels are allowed to be higher, and the police or rangers won't respond to noise complaints like the police will.

I think the photo issue stems not just from the desire for the org to control the brand, but from the real sense that it is a counter-cultural event where things you do in the dust may adversely affect you back in the default world. I think that's less of a worry now as the event becomes acceptable amongst the higher echelons of the business world, but I think it's reasonable to expect photographers to exercise discretion in what they take or publish.

Banning them, however, is not the answer.

[VultureChow]

.
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.

So... a manniken holding it disguised to look like an actual camera?

With a sign around it's neck that says your picture is being taken.

Sorry, I'm just having fun with how to make this work now.

[Elliot]

Okay. New art project. Non functional security camera placed atop sign post. It scans back and forth and has a red blinking LED.

This sign is posted below:

If someone climbs up to take it down, a sticker on the outside explains that it is non-functional and the insides are stuffed with minature rubber duckies for the participant to take.

Perhaps... if you attach a step ladder to the sign post in such a way as to make it obvious that you are inviting people to inspect the "camera" closely.

And the gift in the camera could be photographs -- something that resembles the picture the camera would take, but comically. Best would be if you could print these pictures in camp -- then you could take the exact picture that the fake camera would take, with volunteers posing. A bunch of people mooning the camera, for example.

A few feet of that yellow caution tape that says "This is art; do not call 911" might be a good idea. It should attract people to climb the steps and look inside.

[GreyCoyote]

I LOVE the notion of a whole bunch of ersatz cameras installed in a clump on a pole with monster warning signs. Now to me, that would be big fun and even "art". Maybe a "press here to opt-out" button that does nothing but give the user a mild shock and a loud raspberry?

The mischief potential here is wonderful!

[VultureChow]

I actually have access to a bunch of non functioning security cameras. Dated and huge compared to what is made now. (We just replaced a bunch at one of our properties). Remove guts, insert led... This might be fun to play around with.

What if you had a button that said press here to have your picture taken and it actually worked? Like a photo booth but out in the open. And comically long disclaimer after the instruction.

[Elliot]

...
...
For the record...

EDIT: Problem corrected. Thank you!

[VultureChow]

Maybe one of the most spot-on comments I've read on these threads in a long, long time.

Respectfully, my opinion is 180 degrees opposite.
While I am offended by excessively loud sound being inflicted on me, the generator of the sound has no potential to take my reaction with them for nefarious purposes.
A photograph of me is the complete opposite. The owner of the camera takes something of mine with them, to use for Gawd-Knows-What. And with an unmanned, automated camera! Preposterous.

(Remaining text of quote snipped out.)

For the record, this post is all garbled. It was Jim who said "spot-on", and I who said "Respectfully ... Preposterous". It can be helpful to use the Preview function.

I almost always do when posting a quote, image or link. Sorry about that. Fixed.

[Dr. Pyro]

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?

[VultureChow]

I think the main difference is distance. Drone or time lapse would probably not include identifiable features of individuals and would count as "crowd shots."

That said, I'd still make the argument that line the org has drawn gets bulldozed over with quite some regularity and that in the end it's up to the photographer to use the technology responsibly.

I'm starting though to like the idea of an opt-in camera system. I could still get the pictures, but without all the ethical quandaries.

[VultureChow]

I LOVE the notion of a whole bunch of ersatz cameras installed in a clump on a pole with monster warning signs. Now to me, that would be big fun and even "art". Maybe a "press here to opt-out" button that does nothing but give the user a mild shock and a loud raspberry?

The mischief potential here is wonderful!

Each one labeled for a different government agency or completely random group like the freemasons.

NASA camera can point straight up.

[Elliot]

...
When it comes to music, your rights inside the gates are less than outside. The sound levels are allowed to be higher, and the police or rangers won't respond to noise complaints like the police will.
...

Inclined to disagree. Pretty sure BRC Rangers DO mediate noise complaints.

... I think it's reasonable to expect photographers to exercise discretion in what they take or publish. ...

Disagree. We have long since established that there are irresponsible people present. I remember this because the consensus was that all ticket-holders are welcome under the "radical inclusiveness" doctrine. The WILL be people in BRC who WILL do nefarious things.

Now.... I am very much in favor of doing a fun art project with discarded surveillance cameras. But it needs to be obvious that this is art, with no "film" in the camera.
Of course, an actual self-service photo booth would also be wonderful. Just be sure you don't have somebody's camp in the background without their consent.

[BBadger]

How about setting up a random-photo booth where the person tries to get a photo taken, but doesn't know when the thing will trigger so it'll take some very unplanned shots (perhaps trigger it for movement so that they can't pose). It'll be like the terrible mid-sneeze photos I usually end up taking.

Or you could rig it up so that it takes the picture, displays it on a monitor (notifying the person) and asks if you can keep it. Otherwise it discards it after a time or if they deny permission.

[some seeing eye]

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.