Willful street photography can be managed, Beijing Daily: problem officials should check their identities | photographer | street photography
I'm afraid even a photographer wouldn't have thought that the intimate hand holding video of a "couple" posted online after taking photos on the street would involve the suspected violation of discipline by leaders of overseas enterprises. Amidst heated public opinion discussions, the company involved has issued a notice stating that both individuals in the video have been suspended from their positions. The company's disciplinary commission is currently investigating and will take further action based on the results. When an ordinary street shooting video is overlaid with numerous eye-catching and sensitive elements, public opinion is instantly ignited. With the intervention of the disciplinary inspection department and the supervision of the central inspection team, we believe that the matter will soon be thoroughly investigated and clarified, providing an explanation to society. If cadres encounter problems, they must be thoroughly investigated and punished in accordance with discipline and law. But the street photography ecology exposed by this incident is probably equally worthy of vigilance. After the incident, some people jokingly said that "the streets have been photographed as a new battlefield for anti-corruption", while others believe that the photographer "made great contributions". But to be fair, before their identities were exposed, the photographer only saw them as ordinary street photography materials. This accidental "street photography anti-corruption" can only be considered as a distortion. More importantly, placing this scenario in the context of an ordinary person, without saying a word of greeting or refusing, is like tacitly accepting street photos, posting traffic, or even using someone else's face to earn one's own money. Undoubtedly, it is an infringement of one's right to personal portrait and privacy. According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, street photography for non news reporting purposes, whether for commercial profit or personal enjoyment, whether it causes disputes or the shooting effect is geometric, as long as it is not allowed by the subject, is considered infringement. This also means that some photographers who claim to "capture fashion" or "create art" without asking the subject's wishes are already suspected of violating the law, and it is difficult to clear the responsibility with a vague statement of non profit. In the era of short videos, everyone is given the opportunity to be in the mirror and seen, but being confused becomes a material for others to shoot short shots, which also means potential risks. Some people say that the internet is a society that is accustomed to looking at others with a magnifying glass, or even a microscope. In this situation, although the problematic officials may overturn, ordinary people are also highly likely to be insulted for a certain inappropriate behavior, and become the target of attack and speculation due to a single outfit. Such "talking while looking at pictures" not only brings a wave of traffic to photographers and editors, but it is also likely to push ordinary people to the judgment stage of internet abuse. Legal issues must ultimately be clarified in legal terms. Everything has boundaries, and one must not exceed the limits. In this sense, an accidental "street auction anti-corruption" should not blur the opposition to any behavior of wanting to be photographed or hung up. One code to one, clarifying the boundary between supervision and infringement, allowing problems to be solved at the scale of rules, can better enable everyone to move forward in "digital survival".
