Talk:Street photography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tnpowell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal situation
In cleaned up that section a bit. As it was, it was somewhat misleading - taking pictures of people against their consent is a contentious issue in many jurisdictions, and it is not true that it's automatically protected by law in "all democratic countries". This is somewhat true in the US, who generally apply First Amendment protections very broadly, and allow very few exceptions. In Europe, on the other hand, the law also recognizes privacy rights, in addition to the freedom of the press and artistic expression, and will weigh the rights of all parties involved.

Also, citing court cases makes much less sense for mainland Europe than for the UK and US - in those countries do not have a common law system, court decisions do not carry the precedent that they have in countries that do; courts are (generally) only bound by the written law, but not by decisions of other courts. 07:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Street photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150422045240/http://archive.lfph.org/what-is-street-photography.html to http://archive.lfph.org/what-is-street-photography.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101003044618/http://www.thamesandhudson.com/9780500543931.html to http://www.thamesandhudson.com/9780500543931.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Representative photograph
There's a new pattern emerging. Somebody arrives and, without any consultation on this talk page, posts his/her own photo at the top of the article, and therefore as the primary visual representative of street photography: This might be interpreted as self-promotion. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This edit by Jubair1985
 * This edit by Lenselement
 * I agree, it looks like either self promotion, or a lack of understanding as to what makes a good street photograph or why one would be used in this article. How about we instead use only photographs that have been described by a reliable source to be street photography? Any photographs used should be good examples from the canon of street photography; not just representative of a particular technique but, deeper than that, that demonstrate why they are considered fine examples of the genre. This article is not a HOWTO. Currently we have examples by Louis Daguerre, Elsa Thiemann, Alfred Stieglitz, and Tony Ray-Jones. It would benefit the article if other noted street photographers or their estates were to donate examples to Wikimedia Commons (see also Uploading images) or otherwise publish them with a suitably open license to somewhere we could source them from. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This would indeed be helpful. I suppose one has to start by inviting one's own acquaintances among photographers. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Covert photography
Question, it's stated that covert photography uses means to conceal the photographer or camera. Is it still street photography when using a phone camera where it's not easily detectable that you're taking photos or is this covert photography even though you're not concealing anything? Biofase flame | stalk 17:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

South Korea legal section
The citation for the claim about chemical castration comes from a news article that states that that part of the bill was actually dropped. Additionally, I couldn't find any evidence of the claim that it is sexual assault to photograph a woman in public within the linked law source. Could someone review that section and verify? I would remove the information, but I'm not sure if the info is incorrect or just incorrectly cited. Notmel0ny (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)