Photographers Do Not Take Pictures By Gary Rea
This is not about photography (hence the lack of photographs), nor is it about photographers, per se. Rather, this is about the unfortunate choice of language we all use to talk and think about photography, photographers and photographs. Why “unfortunate?” Because there is an implicit statement being made (albeit, usually without one’s being aware of it) when one uses the word “take” to describe the act of making or creating a photographic image. The word “take,” by its very definition, implies there is something illicit in the act of creating a photograph. It implies that the photographer is misappropriating the image he’s authored, somehow. As a street photographer, I frequently hear people ask, “Did you just take my picture?,” which further emphasizes this implication that the photographer is some sort of interloping transgressor who has stolen something. The word “my” implies ownership, by definition, so the person asking the question is implying that I’ve somehow taken something from them without their permission, and this further implies that permission is required for me to make a photograph of someone in public. According to the law, though, no such permission is required at all. But, this isn't about the legal ramifications of street photography, either. It’s about the language we use - and have used for well over a century - to describe what photographers do, and what that language implies about the role of the photographer in society. Today, there is widespread ignorance of language, specifically English, in this case. People use words without knowing and understanding what they mean. They use them incorrectly and they either punctuate them incorrectly or leave out punctuation altogether. Thus, it is no surprise, then, that most people are not cognizant of the implications of the language they are using. When people typically utter the word “like” several times in each sentence without understanding its meaning or proper usage, it is understandable that they never have a thought as to the implications of using the words, “take a picture.” This is an expression we’ve all used and it is so thoroughly ingrained in our consciousness and in our speech that we are not even really aware of it. Yet, there are other words that could easily be substituted for the word “take” in reference to the act of creating a photograph, including the word “create,” itself. Why is it that we continually use the words, “take a picture” or “taking a picture” when we could just as easily say, “make a picture” or “making a picture?” The two words have exactly the same number of letters and syllables and the only difference in spelling is the substitution of an “m” for the “t.” They are even pronounced identically, save for the voicing of the consonant at the beginning of the word. Yet, this seems to be too much trouble for most people, these days. It requires a mental effort to think about what words we’re using and to substitute different words, instead. This is why there are millions of people who are unfamiliar with common words in the English language. These words are simply not a part of their speaking vocabulary because they know and use only one or two words with the same meaning. It’s too much work to learn any new words in order to broaden one’s vocabulary, and thus, most people will not make the effort. They will always utter the same words, again and again, because these are the only words they know.
Photographers are Not Thieves According to Webster, the word, “take” is defined as:
Take took play \ˈtu̇k\ tak·en play \ˈtā-kən\ tak·ing transitive verb 1: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically <took them as prisoners> b : to get possession of (as fish or game) by killing or capturing
I’ve added emphasis to clarify my point that the meaning of the word has nothing to do with the act of creation. So, why was it ever used to describe what a photographer does? It isn’t used to describe the activity of painters, sculptors, writers or other creative people. Why is it that only photographers are described as having “taken” something when they are, in fact, creating something? To take is to appropriate or misappropriate something, yet, it is legally recognized that when a photographer creates an image, he is the sole owner of all rights to that image.
Where Do Pictures Come From? One of my favorite quotes from photographer Garry Winogrand is that, “there are no pictures out there,” spoken in reference to the idea that photographers are “taking pictures.” He is, perhaps, the only other person I am aware of who has ever voiced this same disdain for that expression. There are no pictures “out there” somewhere. Nothing exists but people going about their daily business in public and any instant within that activity can only be frozen in perpetuity by the medium of photography. But, until the photographer makes an image of a discrete moment in some activity that is playing out before his eyes, there is no image. The photographer is bringing an image into existence and, prior to that act of creation, there is no image at all. So, how can anyone claim anything has been “taken” from them? How can anyone claim to have possession of a picture that didn’t exist until the photographer created it? If I create an image of you walking down the street, that image is my intellectual property, not yours. You played no active role in its creation and are, perhaps, unaware that the image even exists, thus, you have absolutely no claim of ownership over my image. This idea that someone’s likeness has been illicitly captured (another term I hate, as it is properly used to refer to felons, enemy combatants, chess pieces and wild animals, not photographs) harkens back to the idea aboriginal people have had that their “soul” is being stolen from them when they are photographed. Again, any likeness created by the photographer is the photographer’s intellectual property and the person whose likeness has been created has absolutely no claim to the image at all. Despite this reality, I have had people walk up to me and demand that I surrender my film to them (back when I used film) and, these days, they tell me to delete the image I just created,as if they have some authority over my actions, or some right of ownership of my intellectual property.
Street Photography is Not Illegal In addition to this, there seems to be a widespread ignorance of street photography and the law. Many people today believe that photographing people in public is illegal, or that it’s only legal if the photographer obtains permission first. There are also those who believe that it is illegal to photograph any property without permission, as well. None of this is true, of course. In fact, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the freedom of expression of photographers and this includes the freedom to photograph anything one sees. There are no laws, in most of the world (the United Arab Emirates being an exception), that prohibit the photographing of people, places and things without permission. Where a photographer may encounter a problem is when he attempts to publish the images he’s created, or when the owner or proprietor of a property insists the photographer cease and desist or leave the premises. In the latter case, the photographer must comply, otherwise the property owner has the legal right to summon the police to have the photographer arrested for criminal trespass. But, even then, this is not a legal matter. There are no laws, in most of the world, prohibiting the publication of images without permission. This is an entirely civil matter, between the photographer, the person photographed and the publisher. At most, a person whose image is used for commercial purposes without their consent may sue the publisher and/or the photographer for damages (if he or she can prove, in a court of law, that there were, in fact, any damages as a result of publication). This does not extend to images published for editorial usage, however. These images do not require any permission at all.
Public and Private Furthermore, most people these days do not seem to be aware that there is any difference between being in public and being in private. This has become evident in signs, found in banks, pharmacies, hospital waiting areas and on public transportation, admonishing people to “respect the privacy” of the other people there. The fact is, though, there simply is no privacy possible in a public place. If you can be seen, heard or interacted with by anyone, you are not in private, you are in public, no matter where you happen to be. In fact, there is no such thing as a “private conversation,” for that matter, as any conversation requires the presence and witness of another person. The only time one is truly in private is when they are alone. Yet, many people today believe that when they are standing at a crowded bus stop or riding on a bus or train, they somehow have “privacy” and if you so much as speak to them, you are “invading their privacy.” When this is taken into consideration, then, it isn’t any surprise that many people on the street believe their “privacy” is being invaded when they are photographed by a street photographer. Oddly enough, though, the same people who think this way seem oblivious to the hundreds of CCTV cameras all around us in any urban area, which are used by the police and by intelligence services the world over to track our movements and activities!