Legal Issues Photographing White Water Rafters?

[x4photo]

This is a great start up business idea, long term it will not last, I thought you were doing it to gain exposure for photography business. It's only a matter of time before the rafting companies catch on if you are making good money and they will grab it. If it's only 7 days per year you might be safe for a long time. Most the time you are warned before anything serious happens, so if you would need a permit on public land odds are they would slap your wrist and say you need a permit. I think more people would buy a picture than a video, just like it seems more weddings are photographed than video taped. I didn't realize thousands of people go down a river a day, capitalize while you can.

7 days was another location, the location near my house goes for 7 months, 7 days a week, Camera set up I have shoots Video and stills at the same time.

 

[x4photo]

Starting to dig up the legal aspects

I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.
III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.
IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.
V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.

VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:

• accident & fire scenes, criminal activities
• bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)
• industrial facilities, Superfund sites
• public utilities, residential & commercial buildings
• children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
• UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Chuck Norris

VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets.
VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)
IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.
X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.

 

[unpopular]

XI. Simply because something is listed out in roman numerals does not make it legally sound. Obtaining legal advise on Internet forums is ill-advised, and the above list of balony is excellent evidence of this.

 

[x4photo]

XI. Simply because something is listed out in roman numerals does not make it legally sound. Obtaining legal advise on Internet forums is ill-advised, and the above list of balony is excellent evidence of this.

Amazing how many negative comments, this post has produced, I guess that is the nature of any forum, instead of getting constructive comments, to which there has been some. Actually this was taken from some photography law website not a forum as you suggested, obviously this a generalization of laws regarding photography and you can't explain the whole law of photography in 10 statements, but which parts of that generalization would you consider baloney "balony"? The intent of the forum was to get some general questions on the law answered, so I can narrow it all down and eventually confirm it with a lawyer. Initially I had hoped someone was involved with the same scenario as me and would have gone through all the legal haze to save me the time or for someone to possibly point me to a comprehensive website regarding the law on photography, which I have been trying to find. I am actually thinking of this book Amazon.com: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of) (9781584281948): Bert Krages: Books "Legal Handbook for Photographers:The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images"

So if you have actual first hand knowledge, on my scenario, then I would love to hear about it


[h=1][/h]

 

[x4photo]

XI. Simply because something is listed out in roman numerals does not make it legally sound. Obtaining legal advise on Internet forums is ill-advised, and the above list of balony is excellent evidence of this.

Just some more information on "The Ten Commandments of Photography" they were apparently derived from this lawyers website Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photography and Art Law Page so how many lawyers will I have to go through before getting "Black Forest Ham" instead of "baloney" is black forest ham an upgrade to baloney?

 

[12sndsgood]

the point he was making is that just because some layer spit that out doesnt mean it has any relevance to your situation or your state. the best bet is to go to a layer in your own personal state and get first hand legal advice and not something from a forum or that some layer posted on a forum. laws state by state can vary widely. even from city to city.

 

[Derrel]

I think you may be on to something there.... but how would you make contact with the rafters to market to them?

The standard method has long been a bright styrofoam or cork fishing float, with the photographer's name and contact information inscribed on it...you toss one or two corks to each party that comes by the rapids...this business has been around for a long,long,long time....if you actually WANT people to contact YOU, you NEED to give them a card...and it's been "a cork" for 20+ years.

I'm no, I not kidding.

 

[x4photo]

the point he was making is that just because some layer spit that out doesnt mean it has any relevance to your situation or your state. the best bet is to go to a layer in your own personal state and get first hand legal advice and not something from a forum or that some layer posted on a forum. laws state by state can vary widely. even from city to city.

I am working in Photoshop at the moment doing some "layer" composting, and you were throwing me off with "layer" and you repeated it several times, took me a sec to shake my head and realize you meant lawyer

and yes, again, that is my intent, but again, I started the post to see if anyone was in the same situation as me, and had already gone through the legal haze, so I can approach a local lawyer with an informed approach to what I am after, make sense?

please no more "layer" stuff while I am working in photoshop, confused the hell out of me, especially after 8 hours of brain fry Photoshop marathon

 

[unpopular]

the point he was making is that just because some layer spit that out doesnt mean it has any relevance to your situation or your state. the best bet is to go to a layer in your own personal state and get first hand legal advice and not something from a forum or that some layer posted on a forum. laws state by state can vary widely. even from city to city.

This is my point exactly, and quite honestly, from what I am pretty sure I know about the law, I wouldn't trust him. Even if he is published. But then again the word "derived" has me a bit worried.

The shopping malls part I am pretty sure is in response to a California supreme court ruling which only applied to California. It is very common for people to see "supreme court" without consideration to jurisdiction.

 

[x4photo]

I think you may be on to something there.... but how would you make contact with the rafters to market to them?

The standard method has long been a bright styrofoam or cork fishing float, with the photographer's name and contact information inscribed on it...you toss one or two corks to each party that comes by the rapids...this business has been around for a long,long,long time....if you actually WANT people to contact YOU, you NEED to give them a card...and it's been "a cork" for 20+ years.

I'm no, I not kidding.

I guess I will waterproof my cards then and throw them in the river

 

[x4photo]

Bottom line for me, is if I have the right to take a picture of someone going down a river, in a public place, post that picture to a website and sell it under a "private use" license, meaning I or them for that matter, cannot use the picture for commercial use, unless I get releases from everyone in the boat, and I guess that is what all this is narrowing down to, so now I am having a better idea of what to ask a lawyer who deals in this area, in my area, and this was the whole purpose of the post.

At no point was looking for hard core in cement legal advice in a forum, or implied that, but again, looking to see if anyone went through the same situation as mine, it is always good to learn from someone who experienced the same situation so you can go in eyes wide open.

I have now looked at several law sites across the country on the internet, in a broad spectrum they do say basically the same thing in regards to photographers rights in summary. Sorry its just the way I work, I am not going to go into a local lawyer totally uninformed.

 

[unpopular]

Likely most people wouldn't go to a local lawyer at all. The problem with internet legal advise is that most people are not even aware what legal advise is, and are unaware of how providing legal advise is illegal in itself. Unless you are trained in a law-related field, not knowing where this line is can be pretty blurry. I believe, and could be wrong, the only "legal" or ethical thing to do in a case like this is to provide links or directly quote case law. But remember, I am not an attorney either - so I too am unqualified to provide legal advise concerning legal advise

I think it's kind of irresponsible to re-post legal interpretation that may (or may not) have come from an actual attorney at one point. The "ten legal commandments" certainly have some pretty blurry areas in the places that most matter - when, where and under what circumstances you are allowed to photograph.

I'm pretty sure that if you photograph a group of teenagers at a shopping mall, no matter how innocent, in any state other than MAYBE California (and even then, I've never heard of this ruling being interpreted that way), then go on a fit about how you have a legal right to do so because you read some internet forum posting, the mall cops will, and legally, detain you until the police arrive.

Even the "commercial use" part is a bit vague for me, does this mean any circumstance where the person might be seen as endorsing a product or service, or any circumstance where the photographer profits from the image? Isn't journalism typically commercial, in as much as newspapers usually make a profit? What about fine art prints in a gallery?

---

While the legal aspects of photographing people in public is likely pretty safe, I do kind of wonder about the public relations aspect. I personally would be uncomfortable with having my photograph taken without my knowledge, and then be approached by someone asking if I wanted to buy said photograph. While I understand and appreciate that you do have a 100% legal right to do this, it violates certain social norms and boundaries.

This differs, I think, from going on a roller coaster, for one it is half-way expected and second it is not necessarily an intimate experience - one which you are communing with nature and building relationships with your fellow rafters. People don't expect you to be hiding in the canyon snapping photos of you, and you explicitly.

Some people might appreciate it, but I think most people who go on rafting adventures don't go on a rafting adventure for to get a picture taken. I suppose if the rafting company knew about what you were doing people might feel at ease by being forewarned, otherwise I think there is a violation of privacy, regardless that it's legally permitted.

How people feel about their privacy is equally as important as how the law defines it.

 

[x4photo]

This forum has been really frustrating. I took my other business, working out of my garage 3 years ago, to a business that has done over 400,000 in sales so far this year, through a recession, and I didn't do it by looking at a glass as half full, or listening to people tell me what I can't do. If you look over this forum post, it is full of responses of what I can't do, with no firm real knowledge on why I can't do it. There is not one response on what I might be able to do, and how I might be able to do it.

In 30 years of rafting, I have not been on 1 paid raft trip where people didn't expect to have their picture taken in the form of a snap shot or video. This goes the same for similar events such as sky diving, amusement parks, swimming with dolphins, para sailing, dune buggy rides on the Oregon coast, walking up the pedestrian bridge to go on your Caribbean cruise snap your photo, ANY 5k, 10k, half marathons and triathlons I have run, your picture is taken at the finish line whether you want it or not. So of any of these events, when have you NOT seen a camera? If you were NOT wanting your photo taken, you would go on a private excursion to "commune" with nature. But I am sorry, on these "public" events, you have to expect your picture to be taken, most people expect their picture to be taken, and I have NEVER been on any of these trips where someone has told the company "please don't take my photo" the only time I have heard of someone thinking that people would not want to take their pictures is from people in this forum. What I have to assume is this forum is more for hobbyist photographers, because there hasn't been any responses in regards to the law coming from actual experience in the field which is fine, because maybe we can all learn something.

My only real experience was one season shooting private individual kayakers going down a river in which they would pull over in this little cove after the rapids to watch other kayakers come down through the same set of rapids. Most would come up to me and ask me for a card to get their photos. I NEVER had anyone come over to me and say" could you please delete those photos of me" never, not once, never, my only issue this time is that some of these pictures may be of rafting companies not independent individuals, this is Oregon not West Virginia, and I could be in the same area for some 6-7 months instead of 6 weeks so I needed to seriously look at the legal aspects this time.

As for the "Ten Commandments" post, I never implied that was "the law" what single law is explained in ten sentences? lighten up, the title of the the ten should have said it all

What also makes me curious is I am being told you cannot trust anything or any lawyer you find online, YET every lawyer is online, except maybe Matlock, Perry Mason, and Judge Judy, oh hang on, Judge Judy is online.


So as pessimistic as this forum has been, I will do my homework and I will push forward

 

[MTVision]

What did you expect? You asked a forum full of people (all over the world) a question and got their opinions. People questioned your advertising because you expect people to remember your website. Have you ever heard of those study's where after an accident or a fight the onlookers can't remember anything accurate? Just because the website is an easy name doesn't mean people will remember it.

I, for one, don't stop and look when I see someone with a camera. EVERYBODY has a camera these days and the Nikon d90 wouldn't catch my attention.

I think we all understand that people get their pictures taken at different events and that some people expect it. The difference is your just some strange person taking pictures of them who has no affiliation with the company.

If you want to do it then do it. Nobody is trying to stop you but an Internet forum is definitely the wrong place to go for legal advice and the wrong place if you don't want people to nitpick your idea.

 

[x4photo]

What did you expect? You asked a forum full of people (all over the world) a question and got their opinions. People questioned your advertising because you expect people to remember your website. Have you ever heard of those study's where after an accident or a fight the onlookers can't remember anything accurate? Just because the website is an easy name doesn't mean people will remember it.

I, for one, don't stop and look when I see someone with a camera. EVERYBODY has a camera these days and the Nikon d90 wouldn't catch my attention.

I think we all understand that people get their pictures taken at different events and that some people expect it. The difference is your just some strange person taking pictures of them who has no affiliation with the company.

If you want to do it then do it. Nobody is trying to stop you but an Internet forum is definitely the wrong place to go for legal advice and the wrong place if you don't want people to nitpick your idea.

Well "Nitpick" is certainly the right term to use, and your right it was a mistake on using this forum because everyone is an arm chair quarter back, trying to give opinions on stuff they do not have the details on, filling in the blanks, and making assumptions on stuff I was not asking about or asked for an opinion on, just as you are assuming I am using a Nikon D90 for this project which I am not and never stated I was using a Nikon D90, you just went into my profile saw I listed a Nikon D90 as one of my cameras (to which I have 84 by my last count) and started making your own assumptions and giving an opinion which is nothing related to my post. Yes everyone has a camera, and yes a Nikon D90 would not stand out in the crowd, but........ the Nikon D90 sits on a tripod in front of a product photography table and never leaves the studio and that is where it will stay (translation to that nice run on sentence: not the camera I am using)

oh crrrap you must have a Canon, that is why your dishing my Nikon, oh crap again, 500 more unrelated posts from Nikon haters and please that was a joke, I don't need 500 posts from Canon lovers, oh crap again, I made an "assumption" that you had a Canon, I "checked" your profile after I saved this post and had to come back in and re-edit, you have a Nikon, good job and before I get the hate mail I know is coming from Canon lovers, I worked my way through college as a manager at a camera store, at the time I had a choice between a Nikon FE and a Canon AE-1, at that time there was no comparison, it was either a good solid work horse camera, or a fancy bling camera that was totally dead if the battery went and kept coming back for repairs. Hence the Nikon FE, and well an FM too. Since then Canon and Nikon have been leap frogging each other and I just don't see the sense in swapping out an array of lenses each time they surpass each other, so my view now, throw any camera in my hands, it doesn't take the picture.

As I stated again in early posts, I do not care about how people are seeing me, contacting me, finding me, finding my photos, I have been there done that and I have that all worked out, that is not what I asked in the post.

As for a being a "strange person" taking pictures, by your definition, I was that "strange person" for 6 weeks, with 3 other "strange people" taking photos on the river in WV, no one found us "strange" being there in fact we ended up at quite a few parties because of it and I guess we were not "strange people" anymore A little advice, as long as you look professional, market yourself professionally, and act professionally, people WILL know why your there, at any event, and not see you as a "strange person" but as a "photographer" this is a photographer forum right?

And AGAIN I was not looking for hard core legal advice, I only posted to see if anyone was in the same situation as me so I could get pointed in the right direction, so when I do go seek "legal advice" I am well informed. I do not know why I have to keep making this statement post after post after post.

And AGAIN (being repetitive) as stated earlier, I may not be a rocket scientist, I am a lowly aircraft engineer by trade (we get our engineering degrees from cracker jack boxes), and maybe that is the fault of my trade, I like like to go into a meeting with any professional well informed, I am flawed, shoot me.