Law & order

[hamlet]

So last week while i was out doing some street photography, i was assaulted in Brussels in a public market place by a man who was offended that i was taking pictures of his mannequins. I told the man to calm down and that he didn't need to be so confrontational, i said that i do this for as a hobby. He told me that it was illegal to photograph people in public, so i told him that it wasn't, but that i would not impose on taking someones picture or their property if they don't want me to.


So i went home with the knowledge that i was in the right, but i wasn't sure because i had never really looked into the rules. So after opening up lightroom today to get started on editing the raws i took of last week, i stopped for a moment and looked up the laws and what they say about photography: link

here is what it says in regards to my country:

• Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
• Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)
• Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent :er:

So i am allowed to photograph that French guy all i want, but the thing is that i cannot share it with you without his consent, and this is not even talking about me making money out of his likeness. So it appears that my country hates photography, this is like a major blow to my street photography. I'm not sure how to feel about this? You can look up your countries laws in that link i provided.



And even worse, here is what it says about architecture in public spaces:

Some countries, such as France or Belgium, do not have global permission for making images of an artistic creation, like a piece of architecture or sculpture, in public spaces and allow images of copyrighted works only under "incidental inclusion" clauses. In France the authorization of the author, but not of the owner, is thus required if the piece is not just used secondarily or as a background on the image but intentionally or as its central and essential motif.

 

[gsgary]

**** the law i shoot who and what i want

 

[tecboy]

I rather avoid confrontation and photograph something else. It doesn't have to be the mannequins.

 

[hamlet]

I rather avoid confrontation and photograph something else. It doesn't have to be the mannequins.

Of course, but i was in the zone at that moment and i was tumbling, crouching, leaning on one arm and shooting on the ground, jumping forward and taking shots. :lmao: Like i don't know what i was doing, all i know is that when i'm in the zone, i am focused on my shot. And if some french guy comes up to me and assaults me, i cant help but take it personally as an assault to my dignity. Some people just have no culture or civility.

 

[IzzieK]

Hmmm...you could have told him that he is not the only one who has mannequins you can photograph because they are a dime a dozen in some places because they are use for several reasons depending on the person using it. If it is in public, you are allowed to photograph it, as he is in a public place too, you are allowed to photograph him. If he doesn't want his mug shot, then he should live like a hermit in a cave. Honest! Who cares about him...just turn you back and move on...it is not worth your salt fighting him. When I organized an event in our airport for a photography group, I have been photographers who took shots and just disappeared like as it if never happened.

 

[limr]

Wait...you weren't taking pictures of people, you were taking pictures of mannequins, right? Since when are mannequins "people"? Or are we talking about two different usages of the word, "mannequin"?

 

[tecboy]

One woman asked me, "Don't take picture of my car." So I didn't take picture of her car.

 

[gsgary]

One woman asked me, "Don't take picture of my car." So I didn't take picture of her car.

Wimp, nobody tells me what I can an can't shoot, I had a policeman tell me I couldn't shoot when I was in town, I told he to get on his radio and check, I just carried on shooting and he disappeared

 

[mmaria]

omg, that means I should be locked up!? :???::er:

consider me and my pictures completely non existing from now on!

 

[JoeW]

I won't claim that the law in the EU is similar to the law in the US. But a lot of photographers who don't do this for a living are confused around this issue. In the US, as a photographer, you basically have the right to take pictures of most people in most setting most of the time. But just b/c you have the right to take that picture and own the rights to the picture doesn't mean you have the right to publish it, sell it, or display it. That's why we have model releases. And while there are exceptions, that means that most photographers (who plan on publishing or possibly selling a particular photo) ought to assume that even with street photography, it makes sense to try and get releases signed. For personal use or display on your website, not really. But to sell for stock photography or enter in to shows...getting a release is almost always the best option.

Now...mannequins aren't people. Again, I'm not familiar with the vagaries of Belgium media law (heck, I'm not even a lawyer here in the US) but there should be very little restriction on taking or doing anything with photos taken of items in public taken in public space. It might be one thing if you're in a private shop (private space where the proprietor can decide to kick someone--like you--out of the space or control what behavior is allowed--no drinking or dancing or photography). But if it's on a public street and the mannequins are displayed in public, it should be fair game.

Now, all that said...if you're not doing this professionally, there's a lot to be said for being a nice cooperative member of society. That means things like...you had the right to go through the entrance first but instead you let an older citizen go in as you hold the door for them. Or at the restaurant, the group next to you was being especially noisy but rather than insist to the management that they be told to quiet down you can tell from the conversation that a wedding proposal just took place in that group so you let them enjoy their special moment even if it impinges on yours'. Or you take a picture of someone or something and someone seems to be critically bothered by that fact so upon their request, you consider deleting it only b/c they asked.

If this were newsworthy. Or if you were a working photojournalist. Then I'd say matters are different--you're out to capture the shot and that's too bad if you walk on someone's flowers, offend their sensibilities, or ignore their wishes. But most of us aren't in that arena. It's a shame he didn't ask more nicely (which allows you to feel better about deleting photos if you decide to go that route).

 

[The_Traveler]

But to sell for stock photography or enter in to shows...getting a release is almost always the best option.

As I understand it, photographs of people for editorial use or artistic purposes taken in a public space with or without permission - even if you sell them - are considered to fall under one's First Amendment rights. Newspapers like to have the principals identified but model releases aren't necessary.

 

[sashbar]

1. Do not take it personally.
2. If a subject behaves aggressively:
say sorry - not apologetically nor aggressively
avoid any eye contact,
never engage in a conversation with this kind
or even worse an argument
and never try to explain the law to a stranger
3. Having said sorry, do not wait, just turn away and go, as if he/she does not exist.
4. Forget about him/her immediately
5. 99 out of 100 people will not follow you.

My worst case was when a muslim woman was running after me shouting "I am a muslim woman, delete the photo!!!". She was seriously aggressive. And big. I mean, huge. I turned to her, raised my camera, deleted the image and showed it to her. It was a cr*p image anyway. Since then I take images of these kind of people from some distance.



Yes, and as is says on the bus - walk, do not run :er:

As for the law, you can ask people there:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/inbelgianstreets/discuss/72157627215198097/

 

[tecboy]

One woman asked me, "Don't take picture of my car." So I didn't take picture of her car.

Wimp, nobody tells me what I can an can't shoot, I had a policeman tell me I couldn't shoot when I was in town, I told he to get on his radio and check, I just carried on shooting and he disappeared

I was shooting at the library about an hour. There was a woman parked her car. Is it okay to keep shooting her car?

 

[JoeW]

But to sell for stock photography or enter in to shows...getting a release is almost always the best option.

As I understand it, photographs of people for editorial use or artistic purposes taken in a public space with or without permission - even if you sell them - are considered to fall under one's First Amendment rights. Newspapers like to have the principals identified but model releases aren't necessary.

Hey Lew,

My understanding is that the interpretation of this varies from State to State. More specifically, I can take someone's picture in public whether they want me to or not. But...if it's not a newsworthy event, you're not a public figure, or the focus isn't someplace else (I'm shooting a picture of a ribbon cutting or the arrival of a dignitary and you happen to be in the frame...you photo bomber you!) than what I can do with the photo I take starts to become an issue. More specifically, if I plan to sell or release the photo publicly, you're identifiable in it, and potentially you could be associated with something (such as a gay pride parade or a demonstration on a political issue) with the way the photo is used, then it becomes problematic.

Just for others' reading, here are three useful discussions I've seen on model releases:
Model Releases
What Photographers Need to Know About Model Releases
PictureStock.com - Submitting Photos - When is a model release required?

 

[The_Traveler]

Hey Lew,

My understanding is that the interpretation of this varies from State to State. More specifically, I can take someone's picture in public whether they want me to or not. But...if it's not a newsworthy event, you're not a public figure, or the focus isn't someplace else (I'm shooting a picture of a ribbon cutting or the arrival of a dignitary and you happen to be in the frame...you photo bomber you!) than what I can do with the photo I take starts to become an issue. More specifically, if I plan to sell or release the photo publicly, you're identifiable in it, and potentially you could be associated with something (such as a gay pride parade or a demonstration on a political issue) with the way the photo is used, then it becomes problematic.

Sorry to come again to this Joe but you are incorrect, I think.

Assuming that the person has no expectation of privacy (they are in a public space) and you are not harassing or stalking them (unless they are a public figure and then you can 'stalk' them within limits) and you are not using or selling the pictures for prurient purposes and you are not selling the photo to be used to promote a specific something (in an ad or a brochure or any publication that implies that the person is associated or endorsing any product) then you can display the picture as you wish without a model release. You are liable for those other cases because they are criminal acts that aren't excusable by the First Amendment.

You can even sell a picture of the person.

In order to sue you and prevail in court the person must have grounds under the law and the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of expression covers the photographer on this.

The reason that stock houses or client customers require model releases is because the photo will/may be sold and used in ways that may associate the subject with a brand, product or idea - and they want protection from suit.

Newspapers or magazines may require identification of subjects prominent in an picture but, if it is a news article, a model release isn't necessary. (First Amendment again.)