Photography and the Ethics of Privacy

Talking about legal and ethical considerations has got me thinking about one of my pet issues - when does photography stop being an ethics-free activity and start impinging on people's privacy?

The Australian Journalists Association (AJA) code of ethics covers privacy pretty extensively - suggesting that journalists respect people's private grief, only use accurate material, and use fair and honest means to obtain pictures. The National Press Photographers Asssociation echoes the same ethics and the Society of Professional Journalists advises journalists should avoid "pandering to lurid curiosity".

The Encyclopedia Brittanica Online defines privacy as a right not to be emotionally disturbed or be subjected to tensions from baring intimate life and affairs to public view. Obviously the papparazzi and sensational photojournalists ignore the codes of ethics and overstep people's right to privacy all the time: taking photos of celebrities in their homes, nipple slips, ladies without their makeup on doing shopping etc. etc. They also love to take embarssing photos and videos of politicians doing gross things in session:

Mmmm...yummy...
There's always the argument that by being a public figure, you've given up the right to any personal privacy. But c'mon, does that mean it's ok for journalists to take pictures of women exiting cars without their underwear on?
(I won't show you the original photos, as they lack the artistically placed stars)

Celebrities and politicians are also a different kettle of fish than your average daily Joe. It's hard to justify taking pics like this of regular ladies hoo-has - then you'd be a perv. Taking photos in times of war is another ethically contentious issue. Is it ok to take a picture of a woman tearing off her clothes in grief over a son who's been caught in the crossfire? Children with their legs blown off, or vultures creeping up on helpless, supine babies?

There's been a few shakeups over the past few years about police and authority figures taking cameras from citizens and deleting photos. There was the Nick Holmes incident where police deleted films off his Blackberry. There were also a number of cases in 2008 where Surf Lifesavers seized cameras and handed them over to police for investigation. Do police and other authorities have the legal power to do this? No, they don't. Arguably, Surf Lifesavers are just using their good taste and morals to get rid of child pornography and unsavoury photos of topless women, but the police obviously have darker incentives. It's also perfectly legal (barring naked children) for people to take a photo anywhere they like in public. Kenneth Kobre says you are even allowed to take photos of people who are on private property, as long as they can be seen by the naked eye from wherever youare standing on public property.

Privacy laws are a double-edged sword at the moment: current Australian law dictates there are no laws against journalists overstepping boundaries into a subject's right to privacy; coincidentally, there are no laws to protect journalists against court suites filed against actions regarding invasion of privacy. But change is coming - in 2007 privacy law reviews from the Australian Press Council suggested a "public interest" defence for journalists. Bingo. It'd be pretty hard to justify photos of pantyless ladies as being in the public interest. Now to see how effective such a defence would be...it turned out to be so useful in defamation law...

Photograph privacy is a complicated issue. I guess journalists (professional and citizen!) should stick by their codes of professional and moral ethics and ask themselves the same question Machiavelli did: does the end result really justify the means?