Japanese Photographer Lost His Fujifilm Ambassador Status Because Of His “Offensive” Shooting Style
When you’re out on the city streets, you’ll inevitably run into hordes of people taking photos of everything and everyone in sight with their phones. It seems normal. But would your perspective change (pun intended) if those people were using actual cameras and not just smartphones? For some people, the difference is huge. And unsettling.
Japanese photographer Tatsuo Suzuki lost his status as a Fujifilm ambassador and a promotional video featuring him using the new X100V street photography camera got taken down (though you can still find it in some corners of YouTube).
All of this happened because some people complained about the professional’s “intrusive” and “offensive” shooting style which made them feel uncomfortable. Fujifilm also apologized for the backlash.
More info: TatsuoSuzuki.com | Instagram
Tokyo photographer Tatsuo Suzuki lost his status as a Fujifilm ambassador due to his “intrusive” shooting style
Image credits: No.J工場
Fujifilm also removed their video where Suzuki promoted the new X100V
Some people described the photographer’s shooting style as “offensive,” “creepy,” and “weird”
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
However, some people believed that Fujifilm should’ve stood behind their X-Photographers member. Especially since they were the ones who decided to publish the video with Suzuki in the first place.
While others were appreciative that Fujifilm admitted to their mistake. It’s still not known what exactly transpired behind the scenes between Fujifilm and Suzuki and whether there’s any bad blood between them.
Here are what some of Suzuki’s photos look like
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Image credits: No.J工場
Here’s a video of photographer Bruce Gilden who has a similar shooting style to Suzuki
Image credits: WNYC
PetaPixel compared Suzuki to well-known photographer Bruce Gilden. He’s known for walking up to strangers, pointing his camera and flash into their faces, and taking their photos without asking for permission.
Gilden shoots in New York which has a different culture than Tokyo. What’s more, Gilden’s actions are most commonly described as “obnoxious” and “brash.” While Suzuki’s shooting style sometimes gets called “creepy” and “weird.”
What do you think of Suzuki’s shooting style?
Image credits: No.J工場
Now that you’re done reading and watching the video, dear Pandas, let us know what you think of the photographer’s shooting style. Do you agree that it’s too intrusive? Do you believe Fujifilm did the right thing by pushing the photographer away? Does art have to follow all social conventions?
Some people expressed their dislike for what the photographer does
Despite the controversy, other internet users rushed to defend the photographer
they're beautiful photos, but no one should be recorded without their consent.
For argument's sake: If we're going to agree that no one should be recorded without their consent, where do security cameras fit into that?
Security cameras aren't usually accessible to the public I guess?
Those videos aren't sold for profit
I suppose it depends on what kind of security cameras you're talking about. If it's retail cameras then by shopping in the store you are consenting to being there and I'm assuming to being recorded as a byproduct. If it's someone's home security then it's kinda the same. By being on their property or in their home your consenting to being part of that. In public, cameras like ones on streets or traffic lights are controversial because of the public factor. There's no personal or private property in question to be protected, so some people are against them and some don't mind because it makes them feel safe.
You can buy security cameras like at lots of Walmart's and other stores
In a private environment like a house thats true, but public environments its not. In public you should expect to potentially be on camera, and even without being on camera your still showing your public appearance, your not hiding anything bc your already in public. in a private setting tho, you may do stuff you wouldn't do in public. If your in public you can be photographed and showed publically, it's the same thing with more people but you don't need to be with those people. Fun fact: in the movie called 'elf' where there's an elf named buddy, the scenes in the streets of new york have real people and not actors, including the guy all in red that looked like santa, buddy just walked up to them in public and the reaction they have is genuine.
you are being recorded without consent ALL THE TIME, there is not a single street block without a handful of security cameras.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
So when you take photos of friends or family in public, do you make sure nobody else is in the photo? No strangers at all? How about taking photos at tourist attractions? No, that would be ridiculous. The widely accepted standard is, you can take photos of anyone in public, but you can't use the photo commercially if the people in the photo are clearly identifiable, and did not give permission.
K.Kobayashi, there's a big difference. In your example, no one is getting extremely close to non-family members with a camera.
I'm sorry but this guy is clearly a troll! Look at his face when he's taking the photos, he knows exactly what he's doing! 🤣
"Professional knows what he's doing" is your hot take? Sharp.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You sure?
There are no privacy laws in Japan?
There are ALOT of privacy laws in Japan...also well established public etiquette. This type of street photography is incredibly frowned upon in Japan. Having said that, Fuji should've known what type of photographer they were signing on.
In most countries (including Japan and US), you have no privacy protection in a public place. You can't stop people from photographing you on the street. But using a photo of someone for a commercial purpose is different - at last in the US, you do need a "model release" (signed form) if the person is clearly identifiable.
they're beautiful photos, but no one should be recorded without their consent.
For argument's sake: If we're going to agree that no one should be recorded without their consent, where do security cameras fit into that?
Security cameras aren't usually accessible to the public I guess?
Those videos aren't sold for profit
I suppose it depends on what kind of security cameras you're talking about. If it's retail cameras then by shopping in the store you are consenting to being there and I'm assuming to being recorded as a byproduct. If it's someone's home security then it's kinda the same. By being on their property or in their home your consenting to being part of that. In public, cameras like ones on streets or traffic lights are controversial because of the public factor. There's no personal or private property in question to be protected, so some people are against them and some don't mind because it makes them feel safe.
You can buy security cameras like at lots of Walmart's and other stores
In a private environment like a house thats true, but public environments its not. In public you should expect to potentially be on camera, and even without being on camera your still showing your public appearance, your not hiding anything bc your already in public. in a private setting tho, you may do stuff you wouldn't do in public. If your in public you can be photographed and showed publically, it's the same thing with more people but you don't need to be with those people. Fun fact: in the movie called 'elf' where there's an elf named buddy, the scenes in the streets of new york have real people and not actors, including the guy all in red that looked like santa, buddy just walked up to them in public and the reaction they have is genuine.
you are being recorded without consent ALL THE TIME, there is not a single street block without a handful of security cameras.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
So when you take photos of friends or family in public, do you make sure nobody else is in the photo? No strangers at all? How about taking photos at tourist attractions? No, that would be ridiculous. The widely accepted standard is, you can take photos of anyone in public, but you can't use the photo commercially if the people in the photo are clearly identifiable, and did not give permission.
K.Kobayashi, there's a big difference. In your example, no one is getting extremely close to non-family members with a camera.
I'm sorry but this guy is clearly a troll! Look at his face when he's taking the photos, he knows exactly what he's doing! 🤣
"Professional knows what he's doing" is your hot take? Sharp.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You sure?
There are no privacy laws in Japan?
There are ALOT of privacy laws in Japan...also well established public etiquette. This type of street photography is incredibly frowned upon in Japan. Having said that, Fuji should've known what type of photographer they were signing on.
In most countries (including Japan and US), you have no privacy protection in a public place. You can't stop people from photographing you on the street. But using a photo of someone for a commercial purpose is different - at last in the US, you do need a "model release" (signed form) if the person is clearly identifiable.