It's all in the eye of the beholder

[Socrates]

Maybe you have a picture of one?

I would love to see it.

If you've never seen one, you wouldn't recognize it.

I am wondering. What is it about my air travel comments that you believe to be incorrect? Why the moronic response?

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Well the biggest problem I have is that I can't say "because I'm a photographer." Because well, I still suck, and more importantly, I don't have a card.
I suppose some of us though could say that and hand out a card if confronted or we could possibly do something to appear more "professional..."
I don't know. There must be a way around it.

Usually when I am confronted by the police or security officers, I tell them what I am shooting and I do hand them a business card. Most of the time this is enough. But there have been a few times where that was not enough and that is when the situation can become sticky.

I do know that I am tired of feeling like a suspect of an unknown crime every time I walk around with a camera or raise it to shoot some people in a downtown setting. Like I've said many times, this crap is really starting to get old.:x

 

[terri]

Why the moronic response?

Ease up some. His response read like a joke to me, and included a smiley that also supports that.

 

[usayit]

The parent of a child IMO does have the right to say NO I dont want you to take a picture - It's just common courtesy, respecting privacy, that a photographer, if hearing a parent say that (or obvious looks of displeasure) should not take pictures of that child.

Please quote the law and source..... If you can't, it is all B.S. Common courtesy is not written into law. The only thing legally you can do is if I cross the line into harassment, trespassing, or break another law.

To turn the tables a little how would you like someone taking a pic of you if you didnt want it - Yes some people don't mind it I'm sure but I'm sure at some stage in life's everyday happenings most people don't want to be photographed sometimes.

I could care less.... I'm in public. People can see me visually with their own eyes, they can photograph me unless I"m in the bathroom or in a place of reasonable expectation of privacy. If I'm walking the streets, I understand I have no right to privacy. If you ask, I'll even pose for yah.


My source is this page as it summarizes everything and is composed by an Attorney at law.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Please take note of section: Permissible Subjects. It specifically names children in public places can be lawfully photographed.

Where is your source? :madmad::madmad::madmad::madmad: stop making assumptions on what you think the law should say.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

If you've never seen one, you wouldn't recognize it.

I am wondering. What is it about my air travel comments that you believe to be incorrect? Why the moronic response?

Socs, I should have clarified my first post. It is not the remarks about air travel that I found amusing, it was the first line about how photographers are not being singled out. That's it. It is certainly no big deal. You and I just see differently on a lot of things, that's all.

You basically think I am a moron and I basically think you are full of **** most of the time.

 

[abraxas]

...i think that parents should have the right to say no. ...

Think of your rights with the word 'enforcable' in front of them- Like, what are you going to do?

Parents do have the enforcable right to say "no." However, they do not have the right to enforce that objection. Garbz is correct, you forfeit your enforcable right to privacy once you walk out your door.

I've never been told no, or gotten a negative response from a parent (once from some buttinski, non-parent). If I had, I probably would have honored their request and moved on--if the photo were not important to me. I do have the enforcable right to make that choice.

 

[LaFoto]

In my country it is legal to take anyone's photo anywhere that person is out in public, no matter their age.

It is NOT legal, on the other hand, to DISPLAY those photos. Which is different from using them for commercial purposes, which is what applies in the States (from what I have heard through TPF).

So if you feel that photographing the happiness and innocence of playing children in a park gives you nice photo opportunities, you are entitled to do so. Though not all the children's parents KNOW that you have the right.

In my country, however, you must not put up those photos for display. If everyone were really, really, REALLY strict about those "Rights to A Person's Own Picture", you'd not even be allowed to share your photos with husband/wife and family. But who can come take a look?

Anyhow, while a photographer may have very good reasons for his wanting to take photos of children or teenagers (beauty, innocence, happiness, interaction, emotions, lovely faces, good light etc), not everyone might understand his/her reasons. Some, whose minds have actually also become kind of "corrupted" by the pervasive fear (fanned by the media, I should say) might easily (too easily) assume that it is, in fact, other things you're looking for when you take photos of children you don't know.

There's the conflict.
If I get clear signals that someone does NOT want me to take photos of their children, I leave it.

Thankfully, I live in Germany, and I only took photos of dancing children doing a ballet performance this spring. No one said anything against it. Phew!

 

[usayit]

well i have to agree with miaow, i think that parents should have the right to say no.

They have the right to ask not to be photographed... that is protected by the parents' right to free speech. Photographer is under no obligation to follow.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Abraxas is right. I do a lot of street shooting. Some of them are candids and some are not. If a person sees me shooting them and objects, I lower the camera immediately, smile at them, and move on. I am not out here shooting to intimidate or bother anyone. If I shoot someone and they see it and do not object, I walk right up to them, hand them a business card and tell them that the shot will probably be on my website in a few days. I have never once had anyone tell me not to post the shot. You sort of develop a sixth sense about shooting people in public.

However, there should never be any laws restricting this type of photography. Are some guys with a camera, jerks? You bet. But I really believe that it is a very tiny minority.

 

[skieur]

In my country it is legal to take anyone's photo anywhere that person is out in public, no matter their age.

It is NOT legal, on the other hand, to DISPLAY those photos. Which is different from using them for commercial purposes, which is what applies in the States (from what I have heard through TPF).
Phew!

I have seen nothing in German law that is any different from elsewhere in Europe.

Basically, anyone can be photographed in a public place as long as the resulting photo is not used for advertising purposes or in an out-of-context manner that suggests something different than what is shown in the photo.

It is that right that allows photojournalists to do their job and that is why it is present in Europe and elsewhere.

The only ruling of the European Court which has limited power like the U.N. was that the children of famous people have a right to privacy from photographers while not acting in a public function.

So, again, I would like to see a specific law that denies the right to display a photo taken in a public place in Germany. I would be very surprised if such a law exists.

skieur

 

[LaFoto]

Get it translated somewhere:
http://www.fotocommunity.de/info/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild

 

[Kingoftown]

There is a lot of fear in America, and I don't think it is aimed at photographers. When I was young my mom kicked me out the door at around 8 in the morning, and besides lunch I didn't come back until I heard her yelling for me, and this was only 20 years ago. I have friends at work that won't let their kids go to the end of the block alone for fear they will get lost, start taking acid, or scrape a knee. Because I know that if I decided I wanted to take pictures in a park for some strange reason ( I don't think shots of little kids playing are terribly interesting) I would certainly go up to each parent there and tell them I was going to be shooting. I'm not going to stop if they say no, or anything but at least they would know why I was there. Also you might just solve your problem of people being afraid of your big professional camera by using a different camera when you shoot streets. I knwo the classic street photographers had leica's and such just for this reason.

 

[skieur]

Get it translated somewhere:
http://www.fotocommunity.de/info/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild

The German case law that I have been reading in Tort Law and Unjustified Enrichment related to Personality Rights still in line with what I said acts against the photographer in ADVERTISING USE.

I have yet to see any ruling against a photographer for the simple display of a photo taken in a public place or any artisitic or editorial/illustrative use.

skieur

 

[LaFoto]

Der Schutzbereich erstreckt sich nach § 22 S. 1 nicht auf das Herstellen von Bildnissen, sondern nur auf deren Verbreitung und öffentliche Zurschaustellung. Heute ist aber anerkannt, dass auch eine Vorverlagerung des Rechtsschutzes auf den Zeitpunkt des Herstellens von Aufnahmen nach dem allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrecht geschützt sein kann. Das ist zumindest dann der Fall, wenn dies in der Absicht einer Veröffentlichung geschieht. Der Begriff des "Verbreitens" ist weiter als der entsprechende Begriff im Urheberrecht. Er betrifft zum Beispiel auch die Weitergabe eines Fotos im privaten Bereich.

Source: http://www.sakowski.de/skripte/eig_bild.html

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

yeah, this whole " maul that person with the camera over there" is a result of violating the code of conduct in the "Politically Correct era:hugs:"



( I used that little heart thing, to be nice to PC people in case they were offended, by my sarcasm woot)