Would You Delete a Photo of Someone if They Asked You To?

It's a situation every street photographer (and some others) will encounter at some point: you'll take a picture of someone, they'll see you do it, and they'll ask (or demand) that you delete it. Would you delete the picture?

Coming to you from Weekly Imogen, this interesting video tells the story of a street photographer who was pushed into deleting a photo despite there being no legal standing to force him to do so. In the U.S., the general law is that if someone is in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, taking pictures of them is fair game. Of course, what's legal, what's right, and what's smart don't always intersect all at the same place. Personally, unless I just snapped something that's Pulitzer-worthy, I don't think a photo is worth a confrontation, and besides, I try to empathize with the simple fact that a lot of people are not as comfortable with cameras as we are, and I don't think having the law on my side automatically entitles me to make someone feel uncomfortable, at least not from a moral perspective. What're your thoughts? I'm interested to hear them in the comments.

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments

I agree entirely. If someone was particularly uncomfortable with having their image taken, I would show them that I have deleted it. It is probably not that likely to happen anyway, so an occasional lost photo would be bearable.

So if you photographed someone on the street and they asked you to delete it, you wouldn't unless threatened!?

Hopefully you don't plan on crossing the border again. Wouldn't be surprised if you are on a watchlist now. Lol

So you don't know that it is against Federal law to photograph border checkpoints? Or you don't care that it is against Federal law?

And this happened in America.

Putting myself in the place of the person who has asked that my picture be deleted, I would certainly respect their request, show them the picture, and offer to either send it to them or delete it in front of them.

I always respect if someone waves me off in the street. Never had anyone confront me, but I have been noticed before and I approach them first and explain why I thought it was worth snapping the photo at that moment, showing them and offering to send them a copy. That’s always worked.

People are usually afraid of being mocked. I don’t take those kinds of photos. If I were taking Bruce Gilden types of photos that approach may not work. I don’t know if he’s mocking people, but they’re generally not flattering photos.

I've found those who are most afraid of being mocked are those how mock others all the time. A small portion of the time it's people who've been mocked their whole lives.

I once met John Trotter, a photographer for the Sacramento Bee. On a spring day in 1997 he was out on assignment taking pix of kids in a park when a mom asked him to turn over his film (it's 1997). He refused saying he was working on an assignment.

The woman went down the street and told some local gang members there was a pedophile in the park taking pix of kids. 12 of them rolled up and beat the hell out of him. He spent months in the hospital relearning how to speak and eat.

You can see his photo essay and read more about the story here...

Obviously an extreme example of what can happen, but food for thought for if/when you're ever put in this situation.

Then that woman should be identified and charged with incitement and forced to pay ALL his bills for the rest of his life. Personally, she should be hung with her children removed from her.

One of the reasons I tend to avoid street photography here in Tokyo is for this very reason. People here seem to like their privacy and I'm cripplingly awkward so if someone started yelling at me, I'd have no idea how to react. Also, it's "technically illegal*" to photograph someone without their consent here. I like not being deported, so I'm going to continue shooting anything but people, haha.

* It's illegal, but it's almost impossible to find a case where anyone received anything more than a stern talking to by an annoyed police officer.

Whenever I've been in Japan, most people try to avoid eye contact with a gaijin so they probably wouldn't even notice you photographing them!
About 15 years ago, I was in Shinjuku gyoen and a 20-something man put his hand in front of my lens and quickly removed it while I was photographing something or other. I couldn't tell from the expression on his face if he was kidding or being a punk. In either case, I was surprised by his action.

Without overgeneralizing, I think avoiding eye contact is a general thing here, as I mentioned, privacy is king. As for me, people in Tokyo seem to ignore me when I'm in casual clothes because there are so many other foreigners here, it's normal. But when I'm in a suit I get my fair amount of people staring, to the point where I always wonder "is there something on my face?"
However when I went up to Fukushima the tourist agency staff ran over to play 20 questions with me, and when I was in Akita I got full 180 degree head turns. Either way, don't mind, none of it really bothers me anymore, if anything it makes me feel like a minor celebrity, haha.

Well, its actually legal, even in the train. Its not ethical maybe, but you are ok with the law. The problem would appear if a women accuse you of shooting her with "sexual" intent... but even than if nothing proves her statement on your camera - you will be ok.
Ok, it seems I need to write an article about street photography in Tokyo.

Now I must add, shooting is ok - you may run into a problem when publishing... I remeber last time I checked there is a law that if you have more than 4-6 people on photography - youre ok. I need to re check...

(Apologies for the incoming wall of text)

Well, I should clarify, I'm by no means an expert in Japanese law. I placed it in quotations because it seems to be a gray area, like many thing here. It's why more often than not most Japanese TV stations and news outlets will blur out faces of passers-by, but some others won't. I haven't seen anything referring to a number of people changing the legality, so I have no idea on that area.

I've based what I said on a number of things including topics I've read discussing what is and is not OK, regarding the 肖像権 (Shouzouken), which essentially seems to refer to publication rights of one's image. Of course, when I talk about "shooting an image" my end goal is always some kind of publication (on a website, in an art show, etc), of course for private use, these won't come into effect. It also seems to consider "damage to one's reputation" based on an interview I read with a Japanese photojournalist. When he is asked about the privacy laws regarding photos, he is quoted as saying

"You need to ask the Shimbun Kyoukai about this. As I understand it, there are no restrictions on taking photos in public places in Japan. But if the picture is published and you have infringed someone’s right to privacy, they can sue you and have a good chance of winning. The example I was given was taking a picture of Shibuya crossing, publishing it in a Japanese magazine, and then being sued because a couple in the photo were having an affair. If you harmed their marriages by infringing their right to privacy you can lose in court. That’s very different to say the UK where pretty much anyone is fair game as long as they are in a public place"

Now keep in mind, this is a hypothetical situation he's created and he is referring to publication, not private use (as was I). Furthermore he said "shooting in public places" and not shooting strangers in public spaces, so one could question if he means there is no restriction on shooting people or just shooting in general. The actual number of lawsuits I could find online was 3 but information was incredibly limited, but it does show just how gray this area is the people who do it for a living don't even seem to fully understand the laws.

The "sexual intent" seems to relate to the " Anti-Nuisance Ordinance", which appears to be, among other things, a measure against stalking and general creepiness... kind of like Women Only train cars. So yeah, I totally agree with those laws.

Aside from these, I've based my decision to not shoot people on the responses I've received from just about every person I've asked about it. Now, this is far from legally binding, so feel free to ignore it if you'd like, but just about every Japanese person I've asked about it has either told me some version of "yes, it's illegal" or "I personally wouldn't do it, because it's rude". So my way of seeing it is, even if it's legal to do it, maybe I shouldn't be a dick in a country I'm not from. I mean, it's not illegal to take my pregnant wife to kushi-katsu restaurant where everyone is smoking, but I don't do it because it's not "right".

So, is it illegal to shoot, seemingly not, is it illegal to publish seemingly maybe, but is it ethically right in the culture, seemingly not. But, like I said, I'm not an expert, I could have easily missed something or the sources could have been outdated or overstated, and some of it is more anecdotal than concrete fact. When it comes to rules and laws here, I'm not one to push my luck. I'm on a VISA, so it's pretty much one strike and I'm out. I've been told by security to remove my tripod when I was on public property in Shinjuku for "reasons", and I did it because I'd rather not cause a scene. This isn't my country, so I have to do my best to respect the culture, in photography or in life, even if I can claim "it's not illegal, bro".

Sorry again for the wall of text, and if I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything, then feel free to point it out.

Yes you are on point. I think its more ethical problem than legal.

If you interested in the subject there is a special in Asahi Camera about 肖像権 and street photography in general.


There are some cases in it - f.ex. when photographers had to deal with police when took a picture of a family in a train - and how it end it. (Long story short - there is now law required him to delete the picture).

Personally it answered many questions for me.

As about your example regarding photojournalist. Its really really gray zone. You can be sued, does not mean you will loose. And most of the time - the gray zone is exploited by tabloids here in Japan. Btw, I have experience being written in one, gladly they did not used picture, though it seems they had one. Required by some "rule" I received a call that they will publish an article about me and one celebrity involved, probably with picture (of me on the terrace of cafe with manager of this celebrity), no matter if I am giving them permission or not, they gave me a call just out of courtesy it seems, but they agreed to not use my name after some persuasion from me and celebrity agency, I ended up called photographer "A". :)

I heard Araki has being sued by women, people from street many many times... but all in all , among all the cases he lost only around 20k. Still continued to print most of the work lol.

I understand your feelings about VISA. I had the same thought for man years, but now I mostly dont care (a lot because now I dont have to, and a lot because unless it has something to do with "sexuality" - its not criminal and does not affect your visa situation). Also, a lot depends what country you are from. It seems many rules does not apply to usa citizens.

The "tripod" problem is actually a law. A law requires you to have a permission from police of this area to shoot using tripod (Hachiko police seems dont care though). Usually it takes a week to get. You write why you need it, where you going to place the camera. If it does not affect "car" movement - usually you get permit, even on the busiest of the streets. Though it may take a while.

Now the situation is much more complicated in Shinjuku (and beware Osaka - Shinsekai, where you can run into really serious yakuza problem). In Shinjuku in many cases some areas also requires permit from "yakuza" :). Which requires some connection (usually there is a person in between). But for people of the movie and editorial business its actually so common - its just as normal as taking permit from police :).

The cases I read all ended in rather hefty fines, as well. I’m rather frugal and I don’t really have an eye for street photography, so I’m not going to risk it, haha.

I know you require a permit to shoot, if you’re doing commercial work even without a tripod (wedding/product), but nobody does. I never shoot commercial, so it’s not a huge deal.

As for the tripod permit, I’ve never heard of that for public spaces for non-commercial use. I know they are banned in many places, usually with heavy foot traffic, parks, temples, etc, and you require special permission to use them there. I should clarify I wasn’t in a busy area, I was near a railing next to a wall facing the Docomo Building. I’ve heard of security getting annoyed of you’re obstructing foot traffic, but the only way I would have been in anyone’s way would have been if someone was planning to jump over the railing to their death. There wasn’t another person around for at least 50m. My guess is they thought I was too close to the ledge.

Could you point me in the direction of where to find out about the tripod rules. I’ve searched the web but no one has mentioned anything about a permit, only about annoyed security guards.

I dont have an eye for street photography also. Thats why I try to put most effort in it right now :)

here is about doro kyoukasho

or read this:

Basically the idea is this, for any purposes besides walking/driving on the street - you need a special permit via general application (which includes also a permit for shooting). Sometimes a call to a police reveals that they dont care about a permit...

Thats what many commercial shoots do - we pretend we are tourists, or students doing non commercial work. Still, tripod usually prohibited... I dont know what law does it. Its just everybody knows it and many follows it. japan is a strange place regarding laws in public spaces... cause some places are not public. F.ex. there may be fine for smoking on the street... as there is a law against it. but you can smoke infront of the police booth and they will tell you nothing, because there are other guys - who are working on the city that do that :) (the old guys that move in packs : ). so maybe its the same with using camera on the street.

Tokyo and Japan is a little bit complicated in "public space" matter. Some streets maybe actually owned by companies, or be private and city "rents" them as public, some places around station may be owned by metropolitan companies and e.t.c.

I would pull out my nerf gun and pepper him or her. I might even through marshmallows. he he

I would politely delete the images in the person's presence and not tell him that I have dual memory cards.

+1 this! I have actually done this a number of times.

This is probably hands down the best article I've read on FStoppers in some time.....

I would absolutely delete photos, or refrain from taking them, for someone who doesn't want to be photographed. Just because I have the legal right to do it, doesn't mean I should.

I was in Panama City and out taking random pictures of the waterfront area with a small compact camera (Canon Elph) when a police officer confronted me and motioned at my camera (I don't speak spanish fluently). We finally got to the point where I was going through all of the pictures and he was picking out the ones to delete. It took about 20 pictures of "Red sailboat...ok, delete that one? Blue sailboat...that one is ok. Single pelican...ok. 4 pelicans together...bad) before I finally figured out what the controversial element was. WAAAY in the distance was the presidential palace, which apparently was not supposed to be photographed even though it was in plain sight of the public waterfront promenade and I clearly wasn't using a camera with high powered optics.

yeah, if someone asked me to delete it, i would. haha. i once had a woman ask me to delete her email address (at starbucks while talking) at the last moment (which i did) only to be contacted by her a few weeks later to take pictures. :)

In some countries, you will be deleted instead of your photos.

[Reply deleted]

I have a problem with that attitude. It's not so much about the basic issue of photography as it is about the concept of, "If you are uncomfortable with the exercise of my legal rights, I will abandon them for your personal comfort."

I'm not going along with that concept.

I did sit-ins and marches in the 60s so that I could exercise my rights even if some people were personally uncomfortable with it.

Im in the USA, so I believe the laws are a touch different.

I would deleted the photo and calmly state that I am doing out if kindness and respect. Also politely explain to them the law.

I would gather the reason this got so heated was because the brother probably came over with a head of steam vs a calm demeanor.

This is where dual card slots come in handy. Delete on one card but still have the image on the other. I have actually done this on several occasions.

And what if you're told, "Hey, both cards buddy!"? LOL

In the US, unless there is an expectation of privacy (dressing room, restroom, etc), you have the right to take photos in a public space. If someone wants to limit that right, they can ask and make a compelling argument or offer consideration. (Deleting photos on the camera is always a bad idea anyway.) I once was shooting for a project at a party that had notices AND signed releases to enter. I took some lifestyle shots of some big-wig with his girlfriend. He had his bodyguard come over and TELL me that I HAD to delete those photos. As you can imagine, this didn't sit well with me. I informed him of my rights, and that he was in a public space, and the photo was my property. In order to defuse the situation, I DID offer to sell him the copyright to the photo. (I like giving people options. He then has the OPPORTUNITY to get what he wants, or he can decide it's not worth it.) On the other hand, I was shooting event coverage and one of the volunteers asked that I not include her in ANY shots. I was very annoyed at first. This can be very difficult when you are shooting an event with many people. Then she explained that she has had trouble with an online stalker, and doesn't want him to be able to track her. Needless to say, I went out of my way to accommodate her. Shooting in public is your right. If someone wants to limit your rights, they need to make a convincing argument.

Depends entirely on the context for me. If I took a photo and a person happened to randomly be in it (eg. some minor figure in the background) and felt uncomfortable, I'd probably delete it if they were polite about it and I probably wouldn't if they went right off the bat being aggressive about it. If the person involved is the subject of the photo because they're acting in some objectionable way (eg. two people at a protest going at each other physically), I wouldn't delete it regardless of what they wanted. If the person involved was the subject of the photo, but it wasn't due to some sort of event (eg. They are sitting on a bench and it happened to be an interesting composition) then I'd definitely delete it if they wanted me to.

Of course, if I happen to be shooting with my film camera, they're just SOL and I'm not going to pull a roll out and destroy a bunch of other images in any event just because someone is unhappy with something.

I would always offer and do it in front of them except for extraordinary editorial opportunities. But so far I've always been able to talk them into letting me keep any challenged photo, sometimes sending them the file or a few times taking a shot of them on their phone. I think engaging them, acknowledging their concern, and then explaining why I like it seems to disarm them.

What is interesting is that deleting it on my camera in front of the requester only deletes it from the card showing on the screen, and the shot still remains on my second card. I don't have any huge need to keep it in reserve so I would delete the second copy anyway, but it is an interesting reality.

The real reason dual card slots are SO important... 🙄

if you're shooting with duel cards you delete the photo and still have it on the backup card.

"DEPENDS" :D If they are nice and politely ask about it yes ok I will be polite and delete it in front of them... if they are rude and order me to delete it ... I won't delete it, they can go "Duck" themselves...

Honestly there is a simple rule that some people tend to forget ( thus People of Walmart site ! ) lol .. here is the rule: "When you are out of your house, we can SEE you" ... and believe me nobody wants to see your ass crack ..

i would, show them the picture, offer them a copy via email, i would explain that i could photoshop them out. if that all fails, its not worth loosing your front teeth over. photographers get shot/stabbed over things like this. not worth being right and being in hospital over.

In Europe it's now forbidden due to the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Taking a photo is collecting data (gender, metadata like time, area, race and so on). You need the written OK before taking the shot. No joke!

It is not forbidden, it is forbidden to use these pictures in certaine ways. So posting a picture of it on the internet is illegal but using them in the privacy of your home for yourself to enjoy is perfectly fine. Besides that you'll alway's have portrait rights to refuse any picture taken from you, and this was long before the GDPR.

That's wrong! Your now have to ask BEFORE you take the shot. Just read the GDPR.

I don't know anything about the laws, but a few years ago I was in a small town near Sancerre and took a picture of a cheese monger. He was a bit annoyed and told me in no uncertain terms "no internet." I was a food blogger at the time and thought that was kind of silly, since I wanted to shine a light on the small town and their farmers market and products, but I respected his wishes.

More comments