Home About

Ethics, Journalism, Faces & Spaces

Photograph: Shutterstock. Edited to respect privacy.

Recently on X (formerly Twitter) a woman announced that she was being deported from Japan. What terrible crime could lead to this outcome? She published photographs of two people on the subway.

Photograph edited to respect privacy.
No links to the original will be made available for the same reason.

Mariè, an X user who identifies herself a journalist, has leveraged her ability to travel to various locations and document life around the world to her 66,800 followers. Most of her images are what someone might call street photography – a gallery of images of the places she visits tied to some thought or observation. In most cases the subject of her photographs are either herself or the city scape, the world she’s immersed in, or the machinations of unidentifiable, transient people. However the picture that got her into hot water (above) was totally different. The framing almost feels as though the viewer is staring at the pair, watching and judging. The accompanying caption was also a needless jab at the two commuters, a self-conscious “mean girls” bullying statement that had no journalistic value.

This issue can be looked at from the perspective of the law, which in Japan is fairly mixed but largely falls under the intersection of their constitutional right to free expression and the subject’s portrait right (Hijikata 2015). At the end of the day somebody with some power decided that Mariè’s social media post fell closer to one side than the other, and action was taken.

But looking at the issue from the perspective of societal expectations, and ethical standards is a bit more interesting, so that’s what I intend to do now. So why do Japanese people feel so strongly about portrait rights, how does it affect photojournalism, and can we learn something about all of this?

People in Japan have a desire to engage in their private lives peacefully, and they also recognise and respect that desire from others in turn. Generally there is an agreement that when a photograph potentially infringes on an unintended subject’s right to conduct their life privately, their face or other identifying features will be blurred as a courtesy to them.

From an ethical perspective it’s similar to the expectation to not include someone’s credit card or license plate number in public photography (ALCA 2021). After all, our faces are just one more way to be identified, tracked, and scrutinised.

Of course there are plenty of reasons someone in public can’t simply cry foul and demand a photograph is removed. It’s important not to stifle journalism’s ability to tell a true and meaningful story. Journalism’s whole ideal is creating accountability for powerful people and breathing truth into democratic systems. Whenever considering the newsworthiness of something, journalists often look at a number of common values.

If you’ve never seen any Japanese journalism you might assume they’re stifled because of this uniquely Japanese ethical guideline, but the truth is that  portrait rights rarely interfere in their ability to tell important and meaningful stories. If a photograph has real journalistic value, if the subject is a prominent public figure, or if the photographer simply obtains a signed release from the subject there is no problem either legally or from a societal perspective.

Behaviour like celebrity photography (paparazzi) and other candid photojournalism is often maligned for its violation of celebrity rights to privacy, however it’s usually justified by the prominence of the subjects, leading to some type of journalistic news value.

Andrew Mendelson of Time.com considers celebrity photography a type of ‘accountability check’. In his article he argues ‘paparazzi represent a challenge to the control of a celebrity’s image’ (Mendelson 2014). But supposing, for the sake of holding power to account, we accept that paparazzi are a necessary pillar of society, what do we make of the same types of photography that have no element of prominence?

Photographing people in public is also not new. Artists specialising in “Street Photography” have been doing it for as long as cameras have existed (and other forms of art have depicted populated areas before then). In many ways the value of those photographs is the beauty in the mundane. When photographs tie into news values, ordinary people can also become extraordinary through photojournalism.

Some street photographers have written about the additional challenges of shooting in Japan. Asking someone if you can take their photograph ahead of time understandably changes the tone of any photo that might be taken afterwards, and blurring faces in an artistic, candid shot also doesn’t fit with the aesthetic designs of many artistic photographers.

But there’s still plenty of flexibility in public photography, and most people are willing to sign simple release forms if asked after the fact. The line is only crossed when the photographer has no respect for the subject, and no interest in the subject’s desires or rights.

There’s no reason to assume that people wish to be photographed in public, and if you don’t have the respect to ask for permission, why should they trust you to respect other matters of their personage.

When photographing your day, what value does it add to include the face of your fellow commuter in your selfie? Even worse, what value is there in deliberately photographing a person just so you can mock them online? What’s the news value, and how does it outweigh potential harms?

The blur and stamp tools are extremely easy to access on all smart devices. I’d suggest people learn to use them, and shape the internet into a space that all people can feel comfortable in.

References:
  ALCA (Art Law Centre of Australia) (2021) Street Photographer's Rights, ALCA Website, accessed 26 October 2023. https://www.artslaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Street-photographers-rights-2021.pdf

  Hijikata K (25 January 2015) 'It's OK to film people in public in Japan, if the conditions justify it', The Japan Times website, accessed 8 September 2023. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/01/25/how-tos/its-ok-to-film-people-in-public-in-japan-if-the-conditions-justify-it/

  Mendelson A (27 June 2014) 'Why Paparazzi Are Good for Us', TIME website, accessed 8 September 2023. https://time.com/3810226/why-paparazzi-are-good-for-us/