Video Callers
This is an ongoing project which intends to question and consider the position of the photographer within this new media; video call.
Here I am in the process of photographing my video callers, for me this raises questions over the ethics and the legalities of these actions. Here I present photographs that are taken without consent or the knowledge of the sitters.
Q1: Ethics
The sitters are unaware of my photographing of them, this creates a dichotomy.
The sitter is fully aware of the camera, in fact the sitter owns the camera and has intentionally enabled it for the purpose of the video call, the sitter has an understanding (assuming some very basic knowledge of television and video media) that a stream of images of themselves is being transmitted from thier location to mine.
The images have a voyeristinc appeal; they feel like stolen images of a private moment. The sitter has not consented to being photographed and the images have the feel of being taken with a hidden surveylence camera. On a conceptual level the camera could be considered hidden.
Q2: Legality
This project raises some issues relating to privacy and copyright depending on the viewpoint.
It is generally understood that in order to film or photograph on private property permission must be granted by the owner; who is in this situation the responsible photographer/film-maker required to obtain permissions? I am a photographer and take these photographs, however it was the sitter who initiated the film stream.
Who owns the copyright over these images? I as a photographer claim copyright over these images as I chose the decisive moment in which to capture however the sitter is responsible for making the film from which I capture. The film which the sitter presents is a live stream which is not recorded and never exists in a permanent state, can copyright be asserted over this?
In old analogue days it was often considered that the owner of the equiptment and film could have a reasonable claim over the copyright depending on the circumstances. In this situation the sitter owns the camera and there is no film, the film equivalent could be the imaging chip within the camera, it could be the volatile memory within the sitters computer or it could be the hard disk on the photographers computer which stores the only permanent record of this moment.
I am not a privacy/copyright lawyer. However in general photographic terms I am unsure where I stand. I continue to ascert copyright over these images.
In the US photographing onto private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room, I do not always know the location of these sitters.
