"Social media fails to follow traditional news outlets' stricter approach to portrait rights in Japan"

Here's an important new article by Patrick St. Michel at The Japan Times, 5/4/19. It should be added to the VAOJ "Shooting Culture in Japan" project which deals with the ethics of doing visual anthropology in Japan. Methods, ethics and privacy are constantly evolving and changing with new technology, thinking and practices. The discourse on these issues needs to continue.

A man in Chiba Prefecture became irritated last month at how long it was taking for a barrier at a rail crossing to open. Losing patience, he fetched a hand saw from his van and removed the barrier arm so that he could drive through.

Unfortunately, another person recorded the incident on their phone and posted it on Twitter. The user apologized for capturing a few passing cars’ license plates, but believed it was important to capture the man’s behavior. The post went viral, attracting tons of attention online before ultimately being picked up by television networks.

When excerpts from the video were broadcast on TV, news programs blurred the man’s face. This is common practice for mass media in Japan, but this was only one of several recent incidents underlining how social media has changed such perception of privacy. Sites such as Twitter and YouTube are far more likely to encroach into someone’s space, whether the purpose is to shame someone for acting badly … or simply score some laughs.

Part of the appeal of the internet early on in Japan was the sense of anonymity granted to users. This allowed sites such as 2channel or Mixi to become hubs of online activity. Even today, Twitter in Japan stands apart from other platforms because of this, with its privacy policy even specifying that pseudonyms are acceptable.

This anonymity has emboldened users to attack others, with no hesitation about hiding their identity. One of the most popular genres of video online is the DQN video, a slang term referring to people acting in a stupid or obnoxious fashion. Compilations on YouTube capture such behavior in convenience stores and on the streets. This has extended to all corners of the internet, where some use the Net as a way to shame anyone doing something they shouldn’t be doing.

A recent example of this occurred in Nagoya, where a man delayed a train by refusing to let its doors close. A video of the incident was shared online and was ultimately picked up by TV networks, which also blurred the faces of the people that appeared in the frame.

This is because the networks are playing it safe. Media law in Japan gives people the right to be left alone, while portrait rights allow individuals to avoid being photographed. Such legislation has been around for decades as a way to protect identities, although the application of such laws gets blurry pretty fast. In short, if you film in public and you publish the results online, a person in the footage can in theory file a complaint if their identity is clear. Such practice also applies to social media, as a person can file similar complaints to YouTube or Twitter.

In general, traditional media abides by these standards to avoid lawsuits. They are bigger targets with large financial reserves, after all. Individual online users generally don’t have to worry about this too much, although it is possible to find yourself in hot water for uploading such posts.

It isn’t all about documenting jerks and teens messing with food. The Twitter account Shibuya Meltdown shares photos and videos of people sleeping in the entertainment district, along with images of other chaotic behavior.

“Yeah, for some reason it’s the funniest thing in the world,” account founder Thom O’Brien told Vice in 2016.

Is it ethical? In the Vice interview, O’Brien wrestles with this question, but justifies it by saying being in public makes them fair game (while also avoiding ethical pits such as photographing homeless individuals). Shibuya Meltdown is ultimately a DQN account without the shaming (down to highlighting recent incidents), and has proven popular both at home and abroad. It helps that O’Brien says he doesn’t profit from the site or try to sway public opinion — compare this to a like-minded Polish photographer’s series, which was published in a book and tried to take a broader look at life in Japan. People weren’t so happy.

However, trepidation still exists. Sometimes, Japanese netizens post images on #shibuyameltdown but go so far as to blur out faces.

Maybe the best way to look at privacy on social media in Japan is to treat each user like its own TV station, and it is up to them to decide whether or not to play it safe and blur the faces. Hopefully, they will be able to save a few barrier poles at rail crossings in the process.

Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/04/national/media-national/social-media-fails-follow-traditional-news-outlets-stricter-approach-portrait-rights-japan/

Click here for the VAOJ "Shooting Culture in Japan" project posts.

"Court orders internet provider to disclose user details over Twitter photo abuse"

From The Japan Times, 9/30/16:

A court Friday ordered an internet service provider to disclose information on one of its users after a Niigata couple filed a lawsuit claiming the user had uploaded a photo of their baby daughter without permission to accompany a false Twitter post last year.

Akira Oshima, 38, and his wife sought the disclosure after a photo of their daughter taken during a demonstration in August 2014 was attached to a tweet in July 2015, in which the user falsely stated that a grandchild had died from heat after being taken to a protest rally against security bills held in front of the Diet.

“It is obvious that (the child’s) portrait rights have been infringed by the user making a post with the photo attached,” said Niigata District Court presiding Judge Tomoyasu Kondo.

“The plaintiffs have a just reason to be awarded information disclosure in demanding damages from the user,” he added.

Oshima said: “It is a big step forward toward protecting my daughter’s rights. “This ruling also will be significant for people caught up in similar cases.”

The service provider had argued during the trial that disclosing user information would not necessarily lead to identification of the actual person. A lawyer representing the company declined to comment, saying a formal statement on the ruling had not yet been received.

The Oshimas’ lawsuit against the provider comes after the Tokyo District Court in September last year ordered Twitter to disclose the user’s IP address and other information, which helped them identify the internet company.

Cases of defamation through the internet have been on the rise in Japan.

The cases include remarks from so-called netouyo, internet right-wingers who attack people they deem unpatriotic by posting their names, occupations or rumors on social media.

“The current law sets strict hurdles to protect confidentiality of communication and freedom of expression, but it should be reviewed to meet the current situation to require service providers to manage information on users so that people who incur damages don’t have to file lawsuits many times,” said Harumichi Yuasa, professor of information law at Institute of Information Security.

According to Yuasa, the law regarding the responsibility of internet service providers, enacted in 2002, took into account online forums and emails. But messages posted on Twitter and other social networking services spread much more quickly, leading to greater damage.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/30/national/crime-legal/court-orders-internet-provider-disclose-user-details-twitter-photo-abuse/

"It’s OK to film people in public in Japan, if the conditions justify it"

My colleague Sally brought this recent article by attorney Kyoko Hijikata in The Japan Times (1/25/15) to my attention. It addresses a complex question that VAOJ has been wrestling with for years.

Reader R.S. asks, “In Japan, is it OK to film other people in public?

Well, in Japan, freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. As filming and taking pictures are two of the means by which individuals can express their ideas, they are protected by Article 21.

On the other hand, people have the right not to be photographed or filmed without good reason. We call this their portrait rights, and this right is based on Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So, Japan’s courts have had to consider which right takes priority in particular cases. In a ruling in 2005, the Supreme Court stated that taking photos without consent is illegal if the extent of the violation of the subject’s personal rights exceeds the maximum acceptable according to social norms, while taking into consideration the social status of the people photographed, the content of activities, the location where filming took place, the photographers’ purpose, the way the pictures were taken, the necessity of capturing the images, and so on. Although the case that led to this ruling concerned courtroom photographs and drawings, the precedent is considered to apply equally to film.

In the Supreme Court case, the photographer had taken pictures of the accused in court, and the Supreme Court made the judgment that this act was illegal because the accused was in handcuffs, which were tied to a rope around his waist, and the photographer had not obtained the court’s permission to take pictures.

As described above, the courts make judgments based on several factors, which means the decision-making process can be quite detailed, and rulings will differ from case to case depending on these variables.

For example, in another quite similar case in November 1993, the Tokyo High Court ruled that images of a suspect being driven to court were legal. The filming was done from the road, and the picture of the accused only showed his upper body, so restraints such as handcuffs and ropes were not visible.

So, to answer the reader’s question, “Is there a right to film other people in public?” the answer is “Yes, but only if it can be justified in the circumstances.”

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/01/25/how-tos/its-ok-to-film-people-in-public-in-japan-if-the-conditions-justify-it/#.VMXRrieWRHB

I think this answer to the question of photographing in public in Japan is dangerous because of its simplicity. Hijikata discusses the difficulty courts have in making such decisions (there are many more cases the author should probably have considered other than those dealing with criminals - how about some real life scenarios?) so how can a normal citizen, student and/or foreigner judge "if it can be justified in the circumstances"? It is more than simple rights - ethics, morals, values and feelings should be considered. If I were pressed to give a simplistic answer to this question, I would say ask the person you are photographing for permission.

For previous VAOJ coverage of this question, see the Shooting Culture in Japan project: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

Ethics of Visual Anthropology in Japan - Part Eight: The Dialogue Continues

I cannot believe it has been 5 years since the beginning of VAOJ's Shooting Culture in Japan project. The first goal of the project was to establish and suggest some guidelines for shooting film and photographs in Japan for students in my Visual Anthropology of Japan course. Through the years my students have produced successful blogs, photo exhibitions and films with no major ethical or legal problems. The second goal of the project was to begin and promote dialogue and discussion of the methods and ethics of shooting culture with an emphasis on Japan. VAOJ produced seven posts providing various sources and perspectives on the issues of shooting film and photographs in Japan. You can review these posts at the following url:

http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

I am happy to report that the dialogue has continued (or was going on in places I had not yet seen). Here I want to provide a long overdue update that includes important resources dealing with photography and visual anthropology from academic institutions, anthropologists and photographers.

First, I would like to examine the efforts of the Society for Visual Anthropology (SVA, a section of the American Anthropological Association, AAA). On November 28, 2001 it produced the following:

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Ethnographic Visual Media

AAA STATEMENT produced by the SOCIETY FOR VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Ethnographic visual media (specially film, video, photography and digital multimedia) play a significant role in the production and application of anthropological knowledge and form an integral part of the discipline’s course offerings. Anthropologists involved in the production of visual works make valuable scholarly contributions to the discipline. In addition, anthropologists increasingly include visual media productions as part of their curricula vitae. Departmental and university Committees for Hiring, Promoting and Tenure are thus charged with judging the scholarly quality of these non-print works. Yet not all anthropologists bring appropriate experience or training to their evaluation of visual media and no standard guideline exists.

The above is the first paragraph which seems to be mostly concerned with academic institutions being able to recognize and judge the merit of visual methods and images in anthropological research. The last sentence is important that it indicates the lack of any guidelines in methods and evaluation. See the whole statement at the following url:

http://www.aaanet.org/about/Policies/Guide_Visual.cfm

In 2007 the SVA, especially members Sara Perry and Jonathon S. Marion, began a series of discussions and roundtables on the ethics involved in visual anthropology. Their publication, "State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology"(Visual Anthropology Review, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 96–104) includes a description of the first three events (2007, 2008, 2009). Below is a brief overview of the SVA sponsored discussions and roundtables (italicized descriptions come from Perry and Marion 2010 for the first three events; descriptions of the last three events are borrowed from announcements on the SVA blog).

2007 "Ethics and Examples: A Discussion Regarding Visual Ethics"

Main theme: real-world ethical matters faced by anthropologists working with visual data (p. 96).

2008 "The Ethics of Visual Data: Picturing Inclusion, Collaboration, and Engagement"

Of note: cases from the subfields of archaeological, sociocultural and biological anthropology (p.97).

2009 "End/s, Ethics, and Images: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Main theme: visual media, as with all forms of representation, are often used and understood in unanticipated ways outside and sometimes within their original anthropological frameworks of creation (p. 97).

2010 “Ethics and Images: A Discussion of Visual Ethics and Circulation”

Main theme: to explore the ethical considerations implicated and involved in the intersections of images and circulation.

2011 "Traces of the Image: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Questions of interest: How have histories of anthropological practice impacted on our contemporary management of imagery? How are shifting visual technologies and intellectual paradigms disrupting or rearranging our ethical priorities? Where is representational authority situated in unstable, multiply-occupied/authored anthropological contexts?

2012 "On The Boarders of the Image: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Of particular interest is the iterative and unstable nature of image use-the navigation of visual value systems and moralities across time, space, cultural and institutional context, particularly when circumscribed by programmatic ethical review models.

2013 "Conflicting Accounts: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Goal: to investigate the responsibility of photographers, filmmakers, ethnographers to present a ‘balanced’ representation of the conflict.

These authors are to be commended for their work and keeping the dialogue going. Their "State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology" also provides guidelines from other anthropological associations that have ethical guidelines for their members that the SVA and AAA currently lack.

Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth - Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice (March, 1999)

These guidelines address such issues as personal and moral relationships, trust and reciprocity between the researcher and research participants, power relationships, informed consent, rejection of visual methods, intellectual property rights, copyright clearances, etc. See the details at the following url:

http://www.theasa.org/ethics/guidelines.shtml

Statement Of Ethical Practice For The British Sociological Association – Visual Sociology Group (December 2006)

These guidelines start out with an important Statement of Intent:

The statement does not represent a core method for resolving ethical choices or dilemmas, but aims to give direction and stimulate consideration of ethical factors in sociological research utilizing visual methodologies/methods.

The statement is not an exhaustive list of ethical considerations, but rather a guide to ethical practice in professional activities.

The strength of this statement rest ultimately on active discussion, reflection, and its continued use by sociologists. In addition, the statement will help to communicate the professional position of sociologists to others, especially those involved in or affected by the activities of sociologists.

The document goes on to consider professional integrity, legal considerations, relations and responsibilities towards research participants, covert research, anonymity, privacy and confidentiality. See details in the following url:

http://www.visualsociology.org.uk/about/ethical_statement.php

These two sets of guidelines are important and helpful. Again, many thanks to Perry and Marion for supplying them in their article. Perry and Marion go on to comment about attempts to provide guidelines:

...what they witness is our collective struggles with matters of visual competency and authority: with questions about what constitutes ‘‘the visual,’’ who owns it, who can reproduce and educate about it, where it resides, how it can be manipulated and construed, and with what effects, and who has the skill to manage it with the fewest adverse ramifications. At stake, thus, are major issues of accountability, responsibility, social justice, authorship, rigor, specificity, and overall proficiency and training in image production and circulation. These are matters common and significant to all forms and subjects of visual representation and to all who make, disseminate, and consume such representation. They may not always be manageable with the same tools or intellectual strategies, but as the SVA ethics roundtables attest, they are present and potent across the anthropological field - no subdiscipline excluded (p. 100).

Perry and Marion also indicate that a SVA ethics committee has been formed. I look forward to hearing more about this group and their work.

***

Another helpful resources that sheds light on these issues specifically in Japan is the edited book by Jennifer E. Robertson, Politics and Pitfalls of Japan Ethnography: Reflexivity, Responsibility, and Anthropological Ethics (2009; Routledge Press). ann-elise lewallen provides a chapter entitled, “Bones of Contention: Negotiating Anthropological Ethics within Fields of Ainu Refusal” (p. 3-24) where she describes the 1985 lawsuit of Ainu activist Cikap Mieko against editors of Ainu Minzokushi (Ainu Ethnology) for unauthorized publishing of her photo. lewallen writes:

In the portrait rights lawsuit she later launched, she challenged the way that scholars had treated her as a ‘research object’ and criticized the books portrayal of Ainu as ‘primitive,’ ‘barbarian,’ and ‘uncivilized.’ Although the lawsuit is framed as a ‘portrait rights case,’ Cikap’s rationale for launching the case stems from usage of her photograph in a text that epitomizes the colonialist invasion of Hokkaido and academic excess (12).

One result of this lawsuit was the Japanese Society of Ethnology (JSE) 1989 “Statement on Ainu and Research Ethics” which established general standards for Ainu research, urging researchers to recognize Ainu as a distinct ethnic group, to promote collaborative research, and to promote public education of Ainu issues (12). But JSE guidelines for all research lack except for their Research Ethics Committee brief report in Minzokugaku Kenkyu (society journal) that touched upon issues including relations between researchers and researched, concerns related to gender, obligations to repatriate research findings, copyright and portrait rights, informant remuneration, and language and translation issues (12). lewallen discusses the problem of a perceived "ethics allergy" [where a] compulsory code might impinge on academic freedom (13).

***

One final source I would like to present is a very important book that was mentioned in a previous VAOJ post and is especially relevant for this discussion:

日本写真家協会 [Japan Professional Photographer’s Society]
2007 スナップ写真のルールとマナー [The Rules and Manners of Snapshot Photos]. Tokyo: Asahi Shinsho.

This book is written in Japanese; I take all responsibility for any errors in interpretation of ideas or language. The book was written in the context of more and more digital cameras and cell phone cameras available and thus being used more often in public. In some instances, intentional or not, problems have arisen in photographing and/or the dissemination of images. The book endorses good relationships with people in the realms of trust, manners, etiquette, morals, human interaction and human rights. In the areas of publishing and displaying photos the book provides legal definitions and discussions of portrait rights, copyright, use rights, personal rights, property rights and publication rights. More specifically it provides various scenarios and gives advice for each setting. These scenarios include street fairs, parks, sight-seeing locations, temples/shrines, mountain hiking paths, sporting events, shops, etc. The following are general themes that appear in various sections of the book that I have summarized and feel to be good advice for taking photos in public in Japan (especially in the realm of not for profit and for academic use only):

1. Get permission; under most circumstances a release form is not necessary. Smile and give the ”simple asking gesture” before you shoot. It is usually obvious when people do not want to be photographed.

2. Explain what you are doing and offer to send/give photos to the people you are photographing.

3. If people object, don’t take the photo.

4. Don’t take covert photos.

5. Don’t get in the way of events or people resting (from an activity or hiking, for example).

6. Respect people and their property. Understand their personal and human rights.

7. Have a confident, positive attitude; always be grateful for taking photos.

8. Put yourself in the place of your subjects: would you want to be photographed in that particular situation?

This good advice along with the various information presented from these resources seem to reinforce the scenarios and advice offered in Part Seven of this series. VAOJ will keep this dialogue going through introducing more resources and posting related and articles. Please contribute to this dialogue through comments, ideas, experiences and recommended related resources.

"Etiquette for taking photos in public"

Taking photographs in public has long been an interest here at VAOJ under the guise of the Shooting Culture in Japan Project. Today the The Japan News published a general and useful essay on the subject:

With the spread of high-quality digital cameras, even on cell phones, anyone can enjoy photography. However, it is important to give sufficient consideration to the subjects of images, whether people or objects, to avoid causing discomfort.

A 35-year-old female company employee in Osaka Prefecture took a photo of a display at a variety store with her smartphone because she wanted to decorate her own room in a similar fashion.

But the store’s employee warned her not to take the shot.

“I stopped instantly after the warning and apologized to the employee. Are such photos really forbidden?” the woman asked the Yomiuri Shimbun photographer.

Norihiko Matsumoto, senior director of the Japan Professional Photographers Society, contributed to a book on photography etiquette. “When you take a photo inside a shop, you should get permission from the staff upfront. Don’t secretly photograph things,” he said.

If staff forbid photography in a store, you should heed their warnings, Matsumoto added.

When you photograph a person or an item, you could be implicated in violating portrait rights or copyright.

“Unless you’re prepared to accept the risk of legal action, it’s wise to follow the other party’s instructions,” he said.

Are there any tips for getting the go-ahead when asking for permission to take a picture?

Matsumoto advises, “It’s best to thoroughly explain your reason for taking the photo.”

You should say what motivated you to want to photograph the subject. “Because it’s a nice arrangement” in the case of a dish display, for example, or “The way the outfit is put together looks fashionable” in the case of clothing.

In doing so, you put the other party more at ease and increase the likelihood he or she will permit the photo, Matsumoto says. He also said it is necessary to thank the person after taking the picture.

Additionally, people should be more careful about posting photos online, such as on blogs and social networking sites where the photos are highly public.

Another female company employee in her 30s knows that a photo of her and her friend at an event was posted on Facebook without her permission. She has yet to lodge a complaint with Facebook about the incident, but she said, “Just the thought that many strangers are looking at my photo makes me feel uncomfortable.”

In such cases, the photographer must obtain the subject’s consent to post photographs online.

“People should make sure to tell their subjects they are being photographed and ask about uploading any shots on the Internet before they are taken,” said Fumihiro Shimakura of the Japan Network Security Association, a corporate nonprofit organization.

“Sometimes people won’t agree. When they seem unsure about allowing the photo to be posted, it’s better to avoid the action altogether,” Shimakura said.

The same can be said for group photos, in which cases it is often difficult to obtain the consent of each subject.

Additionally, you should not post photos of anime characters or celebrities. Because these photos could be copied without permission, you run the risk of getting into trouble.

As the number of digital cameras equipped with global positioning systems is increasing, the locations where photos were taken may be included in online postings.

“When you take a photo at home, turn off the GPS and don’t post your private information. These are basic guidelines everyone should follow,” he added.

Source: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000268321

"Court rules on using stars' images"

From The Daily Yomiuri Online, 2/3/12:

The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down the nation's first ruling on publicity rights, saying celebrities' names and photos are protected under publicity rights, but rejecting a compensation demand by the plaintiffs in the case, singing duo Pink Lady.

Presiding Justice Ryuko Sakurai said in the ruling: "Celebrities' names and images can help sales by attracting potential customers. They are protected under publicity rights."

By clarifying the status of publicity rights and providing a guideline on what constitutes a violation, the ruling will likely be seen as a wake-up call on using celebrities' names or images in publications and on the Internet without permission.

Pink Lady had demanded that Kobunsha Co. pay them compensation of 3.72 million yen, saying the use of their photos without their agreement in a magazine published by the company infringed on their publicity rights.

Though the top court admits the existence of publicity rights, the ruling upheld two lower court rulings that also turned down the singers' demand, saying the case did not constitute infringement of their publicity rights.

The two alleged that the Feb. 27, 2007, issue of "Josei Jishin" carried 14 photos of the duo, taken by the company in the past, in an article promoting a diet.

The plaintiffs insisted they were effectively commercial-use pictures, and the publisher aimed to profit by attracting fans of Pink Lady.

Although the court determined that photos are protected, in this case the ruling said, "In some cases, celebrities have to tolerate that their images may be used in certain situations such as news reports, news stories and others' creative products."

The ruling presented the guideline that an infringement of publicity rights occurs if photos themselves are sold or if they are mainly used for attracting customers.

The ruling said the case did not fulfill these conditions and thus the use of the photos did not infringe on the publicity rights of Pink Lady.

Link: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120202006478.htm

Portrait Project - Request for Advice

1. F-san

I am starting a new project based upon taking portraits of a particular population I have been researching for some time now. With that in mind I recently had an opportunity to practice taking portraits as sort of a pre-project exercise. Here I give you the results, some explanation of the setting and finally ask for advice for my project.

2. S-san

The Setting: I have been frequenting a certain izakaya for the last several years and have become well-known by the owner, staff and regular customers. Many of these people have become good friends. Often times I take photos and I have actually posted photos of this setting on VAOJ before. I am not sure how many of these people understand that I am a visual anthropologist, but they do understand I am a university professor and I have been accepted as a regular customer. This year the izakaya scheduled a special shinnenkai, or new year's party, offering participants food and all you drink for four hours for a mere 2000 yen.

3. A-san

The Ethics: When I made my reservation to attend I asked the owner if I could take photos and I was given permission to do so. Before and during the event I made it known to all that I was the official photographer. Everyone seemed happy to have their photographs taken. By the end of the event the owner was making sure I was getting photos of certain individuals. Only one person had an objection to being photographed and I honored her/his request. I also made sure that s/he did not appear in any public or posted photographs by accident. I am giving copies of photographs to the owner and making many of them available on my Flickr account to other customers and friends.

4. B-san

I include getting permission in such detail because of my interest in the ethics of photographing in the Japanese public and because of some recent blogs discussing photographing in public without prior permission and almost bragging about still shooting when asked not to. (I commented about this on one particular blog and warned about the strict/paranoid laws in Japan, but the author responded by deleting my comments.) I discuss ethics and legalities not to discourage students/people from taking photos in public but rather to encourage interaction. By simply asking permission one can start a dialogue and get more information about the context of the photo. Respecting the people one photographs is important as well.

5. K-san

Anyway, I found myself in a very advantageous setting where people were allowing me to get in their face and take photos of them. Here are my results. I beg feedback and advice from VAOJ readers about theses portraits.

6. O-san

The Questions: In particular I am interested in the following two questions:

1) What information would you like to have included with an individual's portrait? (For example, age, occupation, education, hobbies, etc.)

2) What information would you like to have included that would put these portraits in a Japanese context? I see this project as ethnographic in nature, so how can I make sure my audience(s) understand I am describing Japanese culture(s)?

7. U-san

Advice on photographic technique is also solicited. Most of these portraits were close-up shots with very little cropping done after the photo was taken. I tweeked exposure and contrast a bit when needed (usually to compensate for poor lighting).

8. M-san

Stylistically I choose to present the portraits in black and white. But some portraits seemed just as good or even better in color. What do you think? This is a major consideration for my upcoming project: black and white or color? Or both? How do I decide?

8.1. M-san (color)

As I said before, very little cropping was done after taking the photograph. No cropping was done in the following shot. The blurring effect comes from the person making the infamous peace sign during the shot.

9. G-san

Black and white or color?

9.1. G-san (color)

The last shot I cropped a lot out in an attempt at artistic endeavor. Of course I want to focus on her face, but I also want to have my audience(s) wonder about what is being cropped out as well.

10. T-san

Black and white or color?

10.1 T-san (color)

For my project I want to focus on the face (I think) of the individual within Japanese cultural contexts. So once again I ask for your advice and feedback.

The shinnenkai was a lot of fun as well as a chance for an academic exercise. This year has been important for the izakaya because the master has begun to turn over the shop to his daughter and her husband. So stay tuned, there might be more posting on this izakaya. In the meantime, if you are interested you can click here to see more shots of the shinnenkai.

"Personal information law hindering right to know"

A recent article from the Yomiuri On-Line discusses the so-called personal information law and several of its problems. As I discussed in earlier posts dealing with the ethics of photographing in public in Japan, the law seems to have been over-interpreted by many to the point of making them paranoid about providing even the most basic information. This is not an easy or healthy environment for anthropological fieldwork. Full text article appears below:

The Personal Information Protection Law was meant to do exactly what its name suggests--protect people's personal information--but it has also led to excessive restrictions on the flow of information, something Cabinet minister Mizuho Fukushima is aiming to fix as she spearheads efforts to review the law.

The state minister in charge of consumer affairs and the declining birthrate, Fukushima recently instructed the Consumer Affairs Agency to thoroughly review the law, including the question of whether it should be revised so this country does not move further toward becoming an "anonymous society" stifled by the law's rigidity.

All parties concerned should conduct serious discussions about government organizations and businesses' refusal to release information due to their overreaction to the law's stipulations on guarding people's privacy. The proposed review should lead to truly effective measures that ensure the public's right to know, the very foundation of a democratic society.

The task of reviewing the Personal Information Protection Law, which took effect in April 2005, will be undertaken jointly by the Consumer Affairs Agency and the Consumer Commission, a Cabinet Office watchdog organization charged with consumer protection.

"I've instructed [relevant officials ] to carefully scrutinize cases of overreaction to the law's requirements," Fukushima told a press conference on Oct. 27.

At a session of the House of Councillors Budget Committee in 2006, Fukushima called for the release of information concerning amakudari, the practice by which retired bureaucrats secure high-paying jobs at companies or organizations in sectors they formerly oversaw. Specifically, she demanded that information be made public about the retirement allowances received by former high-ranking officials of the defunct Defense Facility Administration Agency from agency-linked entities where the officials acquired postretirement jobs.

===

Excessive self-restraint

However, Fukushima's demand was turned down by the government, which said the facts she sought represented "personal information," and the law prevented their disclosure without the consent of the individuals involved.

That bitter experience led Fukushima to resolve to change what she called the "structure of concealing information" at ministries and agencies.

The biggest problem involving the personal information law is this country's continuing march toward becoming an anonymous society, with people finding it more and more difficult to obtain information they need in their everyday lives.

Immediately after the enforcement of the law in 2005, many people lodged complaints with offices of the National Consumer Affairs Center, an independent administrative institution with branches across the country.

One typical complaint came from a woman with a daughter in middle school. She said a list from her daughter's school of students' names for use in times of emergency did not contain either the addresses or phone numbers of the students' homes.

"I worry about what could happen in an emergency," the woman said.

There actually is no problem with distributing such information--students and their parents only have to agree to it--but school authorities were nervous and went to excessive lengths not to violate the law, center officials said.

===

Scandals repeatedly covered up

In 2008, the administration of then Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda carried out a review of the law. It ultimately did not make revisions, saying that overreactions would end when the public came to be well informed about the law. However, coverups of scandals involving government organizations have continued endlessly.

There also have been more than a few cases in which the press have been hindered in their coverage of the news.

Any measures to improve the application of the law--without getting to the heart of the problem by revising the legislation--likely will fail to stem this country's progress toward becoming an anonymous society.

"The current law does not strike a balance between the need to protect personal information and the value of personal information to the public," the Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association said in a statement issued in March.

In the statement, the association demanded the law be revised to include provisions giving "special consideration to the value of personal information related to news organizations' activities in support of the public good and common public interests."

Masao Horibe, a professor emeritus of Hitotsubashi University who specializes in the freedom of information, said: "The law should be revised to change the current state of affairs in which disproportionately high importance has been given to the protection of personal information."

The forthcoming discussions on reviewing the personal information law under the administration of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama should focus on how to devise measures that safeguard the people's right to know.

(Nov. 12, 2009)

"Shooting Culture" Project - Ethics of Visual Anthropology in Japan

It's been a while since I have posted on the ethics project, but rest assured it is ongoing. I have received many positive comments about previous posts and I hope to get more feedback when I present this project at the upcoming Anthropology of Japan in Japan Spring Workshop on April 25-26. For the purposes of this presentation I have named this named this project "Shooting Culture."

Presentation title and abstract:

Shooting Culture: Proposed Guidelines for Students of the Visual Anthropology of Japan

As part of the Visual Anthropology of Japan course I teach, I send my students out to photograph "Japanese culture." Students are to take their own original photographs to illustrate a weekly theme and post photos along with text on an internet blog. While there has never been a problem with the assignment, students have expressed concern about taking photographs in public. Aren't all shots taken in public fair game? Do we need to ask permission? Do we need a written consent form? Can we snipe photos from afar with our telephoto lens? Can we blur out the faces of individuals we shoot to protect their privacy? In this paper I propose a set of guidelines for students of visual anthropology engaged in photographing Japan, not as a prime directive but rather as a starting point for dialogue and development. Issues of concern brought up in this project include privacy and portrait rights; academic codes of ethics and conduct and photo posting guidelines; regulations pertaining to terms of service of internet blogging and photo/video posting services; information about Fair Use and Creative Commons; and laws in Japan pertaining to photographing in public, privacy and defamation. In this AJJ presentation I wish to solicit the advice and comments of anthropologists who have experience with visual projects in Japan. For more information on this project, see http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.com/.


In addition there have been some interesting developments relating to this project in both legal and research areas. First the good news:

"Japan may adopt so-called 'fair use' in secondary use of copyrighted work"

Story from Breitbart.com, 3/24/09.

The Cultural Affairs Agency on Wednesday asked its advisory body to study a proposal for Japan to adopt the so-called "fair use" principle, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring the right holder's permission for the promotion of secondary use of such material, agency officials said.

The Cultural Council, an advisory body to the agency director general, plans to work out views on the proposal by the end of fiscal 2009, which the agency wants to lead to the revision of the copyright law, the officials said.

The government is also expected to propose an early introduction of the principle in an intellectual property strategy it plans to formulate around June.

At present, the copyright law bans in principle the reproduction of copyrighted material without the right owner's permission. This means that even posting a picture of an anime character taken at an amusement park on an Internet blog, for example, is technically prohibited.

The latest move is in response to a call from the government's intellectual property strategy headquarters for relaxing such regulations in line with the spread of the Internet.

The "fair use" principle, which originated in the United States, would allow reproduction of copyrighted material such as photos and writing work without seeking the author's permission as long as the secondary use does not harm the author's interests.

Under the principle, people can judge on their own whether a secondary use of certain copyrighted material is illegal or not based on a set of standards being introduced to measure possible negative effects of such use on the right-holder's market.

Among these standards will be whether secondary use is for commercial purposes and whether such use will lead to the spread of pirated versions of the original work, the officials said.


For every one step forward there is at least one step backward.

"TBS ordered to pay Y1.2 million for invading man's privacy"

Story from Japan Today, 4/15/09.

The Tokyo District Court on Tuesday ordered Tokyo Broadcasting System to pay a man 1.2 million yen in compensation for invading his privacy by airing images of him during live TV coverage of a homicide scene in Tokyo two years ago. The court ruled that broadcasting images of the plaintiff, who drives a garbage collection truck, without his permission constituted an invasion of privacy and violated his portrait rights.

Presiding Judge Noriaki Sudo said in holding TBS liable for compensation, ‘‘The production staff who gave orders to the camera crew and edited the footage were negligent.’’ The court said that children teased the plaintiff’s son at school, saying his father had carried the victim’s body, and the boy was forced to change schools.

According to the ruling, in January 2007 TBS broadcast the face of the plaintiff who was collecting garbage at the murder site in Shibuya Ward where a man was murdered and dismembered by his wife, as well as the plaintiff’s exchange with a reporter, in its morning program hosted by popular MC Monta Mino.

The plaintiff had sought a total of 11 million yen in compensation from the TV station, Mino and other concerned parties. But the court ruled Mino was not responsible because he had no authority over the news gathering activities at the scene.


As if anticipating the ruling above in the current culture of extreme paranoid privacy, the Nihon Shinbun Kyokai (Japan Newspapers Publishers and Editors Association) recently met with government officials to encourage changes in the current Personal Information Protection Law.

"NSK Seeks Prompt Revision of Personal Information Protection Law"

Story from NSK News Bulletin Online, Number 90, April 2009.

The NSK Editorial Affairs Committee, in a hearing held by the Cabinet Office on March 27, demanded that the Personal Information Protection Law be promptly revised to eliminate abuse of the law and the deliberate concealment of information under the cloak of its terms.

The controversial law took effect in April 2005, setting rules on the use of personal information possessed by private businesses. In fear of excessive secrecy due to the law and the deliberate concealment of information by public institutions, NSK has publicly called several times for the law to be changed.

On March 27, Toyokazu Kondo, of the NSK Editorial Affairs Committee study group on human rights and personal information, attended a hearing held by the personal information protection committee of the Cabinet Office’s Social Policy Council. The committee is in the process of studying the implementation of the law.

In a verbal presentation and written submission made at the hearing, Kondo warned that there is now a conspicuous tendency at all levels of society toward refusing to release information on the pretext of the personal information protection law. Specifically, he referred to (1) a tendency of public institutions to use the law to justify concealing information; (2) growing refusals to grant media access to information on the grounds of personal information protection; and (3) a steadily declining awareness of the importance of the common sharing of personal information by society.

Kondo submitted to the hearing a brief report on a fact-finding survey conducted by the NSK Editorial Affairs Committee. The report said a survey of 58 NSK member media companies looked into adverse repercussions from the law’s application. The report cited numerous cases in which hospitals refused to release the identities and/or profiles of persons harmed as a result of criminal offenses or accidents, as well as cases in which university authorities refused to respond to media inquiries regarding the educational backgrounds of candidates running for public offices. Kondo told the hearing that these are typical cases of the law’s negative effects in which information that should be shared by society is not being made available.

Kondo emphasized NSK’s stand that a full-fledged review of the existing law is needed to implement fundamental solutions to the problems. “We should specifically limit the sphere of the law’s application and incorporate into the law specific calls to respect the social usefulness of personal information, in particular, to respect the use of personal information for the public good of serving the people’s right to know,” he stated.

Specifically, he proposed that a clause be added to Article 1 (the purpose of the law) and to Article 3 (the law’s basic objectives) calling for particular consideration to be made with respect to the usefulness of personal information in activities such as news reporting, which serves the public good and public interest. In addition, he proposed that the transfer to media organizations of personal information by businesses possessing such information be established as an approved exception to regulations under the law’s Article 16 (regulations on the provision of personal data to a third party) and Article 23 (exceptions).

Kondo also called for the inclusion of such a clause in a related law covering the protection of personal information by administrative organizations. He said that the Information Disclosure Law, enacted in 2001 to regulate public disclosure of information held by administrative organizations, and local government rules on information disclosure should be reviewed to take into account NSK’s insistence on these issues as well. He ended his presentation with a call for the committee to open full-scale deliberations toward a prompt and fundamental revision of Japan’s entire system for personal information protection.


In the midst of all this confusion regarding privacy and portrait rights, the North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources (NCC) Image Use Protocol Task Force has published an extremely valuable web page.

IMAGE USE PROTOCOL GUIDE. Using Images from Japan for your publication. You can find out what to do here.

Link: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~ncc/imageuse/index.html

From their Introduction:

This web site is designed to give basic guidance to North American Japanese studies scholars who seek permissions for the use of Japanese images particularly in scholarly publications. By clicking the links below, you will access information that may smooth the process of obtaining the necessary permission to use images from those who hold image rights. We have included links to Japanese and American web sites that provide guidelines to American copyright practices governing the use of Japanese images in a range of circumstances from publications to presentations. Sometimes figuring out exactly which person or organization holds the rights to an image is tricky. We have provided suggestions for who might be the likely rights holder in a range of image types and uses. We also offer templates of request letters and permission applications modeled after those used by a number of Japanese institutions. They are bilingual (Japanese and English) in order to meet the needs of North American publishers and Japanese right holders. You may freely adapt these to your own needs when requesting permission for image use. We also offer a few suggestions about how you might speed the movement of your permission request through a Japanese organization.

The Right's Holders section discusses copyright holders, owners of objects, image owners and subjects in photographs. For the latter they state:

If a person is in the photograph, it is necessary for you to obtain the permission of the photographed person, or the successor or assignee of such rights, to avoid an infringement of the right of likeness or privacy under the privacy laws and/or right of likeness.

The Permission Request Templates (in English and Japanese) are especially valuable.

There are lots of useful links; of special interest for this project is the link to Japanese Copyright Laws (in English).

Link to Copyright Law of Japan:
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/index.html

NCC is mostly interested in publishing images in books and journals; I am not sure if they are considering internet blog projects like this one. I will be checking out NCC and the Japanese copyright laws in greater detail before my presentation. Stay tuned for more updates.

"The Great Sasuke arrested on suspicion of assaulting man on train"

Visual anthropologists beware...

From Japan Today:

Professional wrestler and former Iwate prefectural assembly member The Great Sasuke has been arrested for allegedly assaulting a man on a train in Tokyo, police said Friday.

Sasuke, 39, whose real name is Masanori Murakawa, allegedly kicked the 36-year-old company employee, grabbed him by the collar and threw him against the door of the train late around 11:50 Thursday night. Witnesses said Sasuke got angry about having his picture taken with a cell phone camera while on a JR Joban Line train, police said.

Both men got off the train at nearby Minamisenju Station, where Sasuke was arrested after a bystander called police. Sasuke, who was wearing a wrestling mask at the time, denied allegations of assault.

Police quoted Murakawa as saying, “I didn’t want to be photographed when I was wearing the mask. I have the portrait right.”

Read the whole story:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/wrestler-the-great-sasuke-arrested-on-suspicion-of-assaulting-man-on-train

Ethics of Visual Anthropology in Japan - Part Seven: The Guidelines

The Shooting Culture in Japan Project has been updated. Click here to see Part Eight of this series.

Reviewing the Project

As part of the Visual Anthropology of Japan course I teach, I send my students out to photograph "Japanese culture." Every week we have a new focus and theme, for example: early impressions, neighborhood, people, pop culture, globalization, religion, gender, sports, politics and changing impressions. Students are to take their own original photographs to illustrate the weekly theme and post at least two photos along with 200 words of text on an internet blog.

While there has never been a problem with the assignment, students have from time to time expressed concerns about taking photographs in public. Do we need to ask permission? Do we need a written consent form? Can we snipe photos from afar with our telephoto lens? What about shots of large crowds - how can we possibly get permission from everyone? Can we blur out the faces of individual we shoot to protect their privacy? How can I ask people's permission if I can't speak Japanese? Aren't all shots taken in public fair game?

These are all challenging questions that deserve more attention and explanation than "use your common sense."

With this in mind I have researched and posted information and data on several related issues here on VAOJ with the ultimate goal of establishing a set of guidelines for students of visual anthropology in Japan.

In Part One I provide some background into the problem, especially in the Japanese setting, along with discussion of privacy issues and portrait rights.

In Part Two I provide information on various academic codes of ethics, rules of conduct and photo posting guidelines including those from the American Anthropological Association, the Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association and Japan Today. The Right of privacy is also discussed.

In Part Three I examine regulations pertaining to terms of service of internet blogging and photo/video posting services. I also include information about Fair Use and Creative Commons.

In Part Four I provide comments from photographers and photojournalists currently working in Japan. How do they deal with taking photos in public?

Part Five examines the actual laws in Japan pertaining to photographing in public, privacy and defamation.

Part Six provides casual thoughts pertaining to this project and several scenarios where photographing in public may or may not be problematic.

Here in Part Seven I propose the following set of guidelines, not as a prime directive or final ruling, but rather as a starting point for further dialogue and development. These guidelines are for my students and not intended to dictate any rules or ethical standards on any other professionals or individuals engaged in similar activities. These guidelines are far from perfect. Personally I find some of them to be too conservative and too restraining, especially from the perspective of an artist/photographer/photojournalist (as my father was all three, I have some insight here). In the end the guidelines serve to protect my students; I cannot expect them to judge based on years of experience and/or possess Japanese cultural "common sense."

Protecting and honoring the people we study is a major theme of the guidelines. I believe this should be done while conducting research in the field and as a part of the collaboration we do with our informants/subjects. Various devices employed after a photograph has been taken to provide anonymity are problematic in that they take away from the true illustration we hope to provide in cultural description and in the end cannot fully guarantee privacy or protection. Also, they might serve to actually reinforce the difficult environment we struggle to work in. As Mark D. West writes in his Secrets, Sex, and Spectacle: The Rules of Scandal in Japan and the United States (2006):

Once reserved only for truly information-sensitive cases, cheaply produced hype is used now even in cases which the legal context might not require it. The result of such "care" is often a heightened sense of sensationalism, sexiness, and mystery. As anonymous and unaccountable commentators with altered voices and hidden faces tell their stories, separating truth from lies in an already confusing system becomes even more difficult for viewers (p. 113).

Some examples:

Current advertisement for Keihan Train Line and its affiliated travel agencies; main caption reads: "travel from the usual station" (meaning you can start your journey conveniently from your local train station). Why is the woman's face cropped off? Is it to protect her privacy? What are we to focus on in the picture? A young woman sitting on her luggage? Was Keihan not able to get their usual model for this ad campaign?

Darkened image emphasizing the outline of the informant: the shadow knows...

(Image borrowed from KK.org.) With this new software (among other things) you can combine the faces of two individuals to disguise them both. Is this really useful for anthropology or any form of photography?

Link to "Face Swapper Privacy"
http://kk.org/ct2/2008/07/face-swapper-privacy.php

Artistic representations disguising the individual?

Other questions:

Is a street performer and the crowd he attracts fair game for photographing/filming?

How about someone dressed to attract attention? How about the people around her/him?

Does a smile or a pose indicate consent? How can the visual anthropologist judge how multiple audiences will react to the photo and the subject(s) within (are they seen in a good light or a bad light or a strange light?)? Should subjects be compensated? How?

If someone doesn't even know they are being photographed, can they really be hurt?

Can visual anthropologists in Japan get away with an in-your-face style of photography?

These are not easy questions to answer. But they are addressed in the guidelines. So, enough procrastination... Here they are... よろしくお願いします。


"Visual Anthropology of Japan" Student Guidelines for Photographing/Filming in Public (version 2009.1)

Preamble: The Environment, Intention and Practice

As visual anthropologists, the subjects of our research are of primary concern. They share their information as informants/collaborators and open their lives up for us and for the purpose of cultural description. Ensuring that our research does not harm the safety, honor and privacy of our subjects is our primary responsibility.

As visual anthropologists, we have the responsibility of sharing our research and findings with the general public as an academic exercise for educational purposes only. Our research is not a money-making endeavor. We must be especially careful in the cultural descriptions we provide, avoiding intrusion of privacy of the people we research. We strive to present honest and honorable discourse, endeavoring to avoid embarrassing our subjects and/or presenting them in a false light. Critique or critical comments must be handled in a sensitive fashion.

As visual anthropologists, we are engaged in both scientific and artistic activities. We must balance our creativity and originality with the protection of the people we study. We must also give credit where credit is due when we borrow the work, words, ideas and/or images provided by others. We work within the realm of Fair Use.

At the same time, we as visual anthropologists acknowledge the challenging environment we find ourselves in when doing our research in Japan. Japanese laws and court decisions dealing with privacy, defamation and portrait rights are obscure and ambiguous. Oftentimes the general public can be seen as over-reacting in their interpretation of current privacy laws. Not all in the public setting can be seen as fair game for photographing or filming. As such we as visual anthropologists have the responsibility to protect ourselves from lawsuits and prosecution.

As visual anthropologist working in Japan, we acknowledge the above responsibilities through our honest intentions and honorable practice.

Section 1. Students are advised to make their academic/scholarly/for educational purposes only intentions made clear on their blog through the following actions.

A. Provide an academic disclaimer: "This blog is a class project for my Visual Anthropology class; as such it is for educational purposes only. All photos posted here are taken by the blog author unless otherwise noted. If any problem with the posting of a particular photo is brought to my attention, I will earnestly review the problem and remove the photo if necessary."

B. If asked, actually remove problematic photos from the blog to avoid any legal problems.

C. License the blog with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License. This grants the blog owner certain rights while at the same time reinforcing the idea that the blog and its contents are being created and presented within the realm of Fair Use.

D. Refrain from adding any page elements to your layout that might result in making any money. Such an action would run counter to the noncommercial aspect of the creative commons license.

E. Give proper attribution for all work, words, ideas and/or images borrowed. This can be done through a standard academic citation and/or by providing the url of the source (or a hot link to the source).

F. Consider adding a watermark to your photographs and/or posting them in low resolution. Keep in mind that you lose some control over the images by posting them on the blog.

Section 2. Students are advised to ask permission of the people they photograph/film when at all possible. Subjects should give permission to be photographed and have their image posted on an internet blog. Oral permission is adequate as this is a not for profit, academic exercise.

A. During long term ethnographic projects, students should gain permission from their subjects/informants/collaborators. Continual negotiation of this permission is necessary as new situations arise and new people enter the research setting.

B. When photographing/filming in certain locations (temples, shrines, private property, etc.) watch for signs banning camera use. Be careful with your camera flash and any sounds your camera might make. Try to avoid getting in the way of others. Do not do anything that will interrupt the event you are researching.

C. When photographing unknown people in public, ask their permission first. However, there are instances when this is not possible, appropriate or would run counter to the goal of one's research. In such cases, ask permission after photographing/filming. If you are working with a digital camera, offer to show the image to the subject.

D. If you are photographing/filming in public at a crowded event and other people are taking photographs/filming, it is most likely acceptable to photograph/film as well without having to get permission from everyone in the crowd.

E. If you are the only one photographing/filming in public at a crowded event, it is a good idea to ask a few people around you what is going on and if it is appropriate to photograph/film. However your questions should not interfere with the event itself. Be discreet.

F. Sniping photographs/film with a telephoto lens from afar and taking secret photos/film should be avoided. This can be considered secret research which is also to be avoided under common anthropological ethics. Blurring faces and/or adding black bars over images do not effectively guarantee that the subject will be anonymous. Also, such techniques can be seen as taking away from any the whole point of illustrating one's cultural description.

G. Anything and everything in public is NOT fair game to be photographed/filmed in Japan. Even unintentional intrusion could be harmful to people appearing in the photograph and leaves the visual anthropologist at risk for legal action. Do not assume that your status as a foreigner in Japan will protect you from any privacy or defamation laws.

H. When seeking permission to photograph/film and blog, answer any questions the subject might have. Do not force them to do anything they do not want to do. Research standards as outlined in the AAA Code of Ethics should be followed whenever possible.

I. If you have difficulty speaking Japanese, you can 1) ask a Japanese-speaking friend to assist you, or 2) prepare a written script with appropriate questions, your name and the url of your blog. You can either speak the script or show it in written form.

J. Compensating the subject/informant/collaborator really depends on the depth of the relationship between the former and the visual anthropologist. Money compensation should be avoided. Sharing the url of your blog along with a hearty "thank you" should be sufficient. However, for long term relationships you might want to consider giving the subject a copy of the photograph/film, language exchange or some other simple personal favor. We must never forget that we cannot do our work without the cooperation and generosity of others.

***

Comments, please.

See Part Eight of this series (September 2014): http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2014/09/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan.html