TonyF Loc: Bradenton, FL

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Nothing like sucking the soul out of someone with a camera. (/s)

I suppose at some point to appease people's privacy, it will become illegal. (also /s)

OR... we can wear masks!!! (definitely /s)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Laws DO vary by country! Best to check before going.
Found this about France at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France.

"In France in a number of legal cases the judges in courts of law have declared that photographers have the right to take and publish photos of people in public without their knowledge or consent as long as the photos contribute to the public's exchange of ideas and opinions; for example, a legal case between a street photographer and a non-celebrity woman appearing in a photograph taken without her knowledge and published without her consent in the photographer's book decreed that the photographer's freedom of expression in taking and publishing street photography without the consent of the subject is an important freedom in a democracy: the judge said that "the right to control one’s image must yield when a photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions, deemed “indispensable” to a democratic society."[56] Therefore, even though the privacy right in public exists in France, a photograph of a specific identifiable person in a public place can still be taken and published without the subject's consent as long as it can be shown that the photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions to such a degree that would make the photographer's freedom of expression right more important to the public interest than the subject's privacy right. It is therefore wrong to assume that it's always "illegal" to take and publish photos of people without their consent in France, what happens in reality is that the photographer has the legal right to freedom of expression, the subject has the legal right of privacy, and the public has the legal right of exchanging ideas and opinions, and when the subject's right to privacy would threaten the public's right to exchange ideas and opinions the photographer's right to freedom of expression is considered superior to the subject's right to privacy because otherwise the public's right to exchange of ideas and opinions couldn't be served."

Best thing, even if allowed? If someone says "<Please> Don't!", don't...
Just simply respect others.

twosummers Loc: Melbourne Australia or Lincolnshire England

This could open a can of worms. I can only vouch for the UK and from a real estate agency photographer perspective.

From time to time I am challenged (often rudely) when simply taking a street scene (as requested by the agent) to show how the property sits in the street and views around the property. I take care not to include any people yet I am still challenged. Whilst I am happy to enter into a conversation with a polite neighbour for example I simply state the law to anyone who is not polite (or I may choose to ignore them).

Putting ethics aside, the "law" in the UK is that it is legal (lawful) to photograph anything one can see from a public space. This can even include people with or without their permission (does not apply to me). I've even had people call the police though why they (the police) don't advise the caller of the law I have yet to understand.

If and when the police arrive I often have to advise them of the law whilst refusing to give my personal details (one of the main reasons for action against the police is their misuse of personal information). The law is clear on the subject of street photography and most police are now aware of it. It cannot ever be used as a public order offence or a nuisance. Additionally the police have no authority to see any video or photograph taken without a court order. So far on every occasion the police have left me to my work and are always polite.

I accept that it is a different albeit ethical one if people are involved and always best I think to delete any such photographs upon request.

Just to add the country is full of CCTV cameras and hence there is no expectation of remaining un-photographed

Jim70 Loc: Delaware

In some cases, yes and no.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

OK, I give up, what is (/s) suppose to mean?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sarcasm...
(To help indicate that it was meant that way.)

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

As others point out, laws vary greatly from country to country. There also is an ethical issue. I don't see a problem if you photograph a street with some people, as long as individuals do not become the main focus. If I take a picture of people specifically I am simply asking people for their permission. I find that most people are okay with that if you talk to them respectfully, and I find it easier to talk to people than expected.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

<sarcasm>statement</sarcasm>
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Another way, more typing, but also more definitive for text between the two words, as in <start> and <end>.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

As for the U.S., any time one steps into the public right-of-way, there is no expectation of privacy. As eluded to earlier in this thread, if one can see something from the public right of way, it's pretty much fair game. The ethical aspect is the more important consideration here.
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

ChuckMc Loc: Prescott, AZ

It is derived from a computer language for publishing. It is commonly used like this to indicate that the previous statement was meant as sarcasm or a joke. Specifically, it says 'Sarcasm off'.

Hope this helps.
Chuck

SteveFranz Loc: Durham, NC

As always, a bit of common sense applies to taking pictures of people in public places.

Photos of people walking down the street - no problem.

Photos of children in the playground - potential serious problems.