permission or not?

[SimplyMo]

Nope, didn't ask. Look at those links, never asked a single person. The guy in the car ... I was walking down Broadway in LA, saw the
photo, I turned and focused, released the shutter and walked away.

have you ever had any bad reactions from people? any bad experiences?

 

[Seefutlung]

that is a good question though, what things to full under the category for "expectation of privacy"?
anything that we wouldn't normally think of??

Back to common sense and decency. Say a person walking down a sidewalk and has a wardrobe malfunction and they quickly duck into a doorway or run down an alley in order to fix the problem in "privacy" ... you cannot go and chase them down, snapping away. If a person strolls down the sidewalk in their undies ... they are fair game.

If a person is giving birth in a doorway, that is fair game as news ... the public's right to know prevails over an individual's right to privacy.

So use common sense.

Gary

 

[Seefutlung]

have you ever had any bad reactions from people? any bad experiences?

Rarely, the big guy under "New" actually grabbed by camera. I turned and walk the opposite direction ... drama over. I used to be a press photog ... so I dress "professionally" (long pants, sleeved shirt, no sandels), and act professionally, as if I belonged on the street. A trick I learned from working news ... if you don't want to be noticed then become a part of and blend into the crowd. The ol' hiding in plain sight thing. So I try to flow with the street, I act as if I belong there as much as the people I photograph ... since I project ... and they can sense that I belong there ... I get little flak. Plus I'm usually always moving. Shoot and walk ... shoot and walk.

Once again ... that is how I shoot and it works for me. Others may have different methods which work for them (i.e. shooing from the hip). You just have to shoot and see what works for you.

Gary

 

[RacePhoto]

If by any means you plan to publish it, then yes ask for permission. There was a lawsuit a while back for a company where someone's shadow was in the photo. They actually won the suit because there shadow was in the photo.

Can you give a name or state, country, or anything about this case, I'd love to read how a shadow in a photo won a judgment. I'd think there are some very special circumstances.

Anyone able to substantiate this at all?

 

[manaheim]

Gary- Awesome shots.

In support of Seef's statements... I have been sued... um... *tries to count in head* 3 times? Each of those has been for absolutely bizarre trumped-up reasons that have invariably had my lawyers absolutely scratching their heads.

People CAN sue for whatever reason they like... the real problem here is you have to pay an attourney to defend you, and then sue them later if they suit was trumped up and hope to get your atty fees back. You don't want to know how expensive defense can get.

I don't mean to scare anyone here, but it can happen. I would advise walking away quickly from anyone who looks like they're going to call a lawyer.

 

[passerby]

im looking for every photographer's oppinion possible on this topic... it's my biggest weakness as a photographer that loves photographing people, especially candid--in everyday life.

when you're photographing people, in public, do you ask for people's permission? or do you shoot sort of inconspicuously (try to just blend in with the public)? do you use a zoom lens?
or do you just not care whether your noticed or not (unless someone says something)?

I don't like people take photo of me so do you, therefore I assume they don't like it either. Most of the time when we take picture of people in public or in private property there is something we gain. It is impossible to say that there is no gain it.

The press photographer and the papparazis for example sold their photos money, fame. Loughing at other people short comings too is our gain at other people expense. Respect is due to the people whose picture are in our posession.

This story is a good guide for what we do, and be ready to go to court when you face the wrong man / woman. Believe what you read below here instead of law guessing games:


Former Opposition leader Mark Latham was found to be "way out of line" when he took a news photographer’s $6700 camera home and smashed it, a magistrate found in June 2006.

Latham had pleased guilty to maliciously damaging News Ltd photographer Ross Schultz’s camera on January 19 2006. Latham approached Schultz, took the camera and smashed it with a mallet in his shed when he got home, but not before obtaining 50 photographs from the memory chip.

The Director of Public Prosecutions had earlier dropped charges of assault and theft against Latham. No conviction was recorded but Latham was placed on a two-year good behaviour bond.

 

[Bifurcator]

Seefutlung, those images are outstanding! Truly great works!

I also like and appreciate you common sense views on the topic at hand!!

Thanks!

 

[grimm5577]

The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.

Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.

Legally you can not publish/print/sell a photo of any recognizable person or property with out written consent from the person or owner. Underage people require getting the parents or guardians written permission.
The only time this is not the case is for journalistic/editorial purposes.

Thats the Black and White of the law, sure there are Gray areas but that is the very simple answer. I carry a bunch of release forms with me when i shoot in public.

I take the random/candid shot, then ask them for the permission after. This way the moment isn't ruined.



That is the law. Like it or not.

 

[Seefutlung]

The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.

Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.

Legally you can not publish/print/sell a photo of any recognizable person or property with out written consent from the person or owner. Underage people require getting the parents or guardians written permission.
The only time this is not the case is for journalistic/editorial purposes.

Thats the Black and White of the law, sure there are Gray areas but that is the very simple answer. I carry a bunch of release forms with me when i shoot in public.

I take the random/candid shot, then ask them for the permission after. This way the moment isn't ruined.



That is the law. Like it or not.

That is COMPLETELY false, at least in the USA.
Go to www.photoattorney.com

If a person is in public they are fair game regardless of age (once again show me a law which states that minors have a greater right to privacy than adults). If you post on the internet you are publishing. The only time you need a release is if you commercially exploit the image.

Making and selling an "art" book of people and children on public sidewalks is not a commercial enterprise and is done all the time without a release(s). Using a person's image for advertising is a comercial enterprise and requires a release.

Getting a release is always better than not having one, but it is not necessary.

As to your statement of property, once again, if you shoot someone property and you are on public property it is fair game.

Gary

 

[Village Idiot]

The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.

Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.

Legally you can not publish/print/sell a photo of any recognizable person or property with out written consent from the person or owner. Underage people require getting the parents or guardians written permission.
The only time this is not the case is for journalistic/editorial purposes.

Thats the Black and White of the law, sure there are Gray areas but that is the very simple answer. I carry a bunch of release forms with me when i shoot in public.

I take the random/candid shot, then ask them for the permission after. This way the moment isn't ruined.



That is the law. Like it or not.

Bull. If it's considered art and you're not using it commercially, then you don't need a release.

If I shot a picture of Curtis Jackson sitting on a bench in the park crying his eyes out and was selling a limited run of prints for $5000 a piece, then I wouldn't need his permission.

There was a case were and Orthodox Jew Rabbi had his photo taken by a pretty well known street photog. He sued when he found out the guy was selling it. The ruling was that it was not being used commercially and being sold as art, so he was legally allowed to profit off of the other man's photo.

If that wasn't the case, a street photog that's selling his artwork would have to carry around millions of model release forms. Ever take a shot with more than 50 people in it?

 

[Village Idiot]

That is COMPLETELY false, at least in the USA.
Go to www.photoattorney.com

If a person is in public they are fair game regardless of age (once again show me a law which states that minors have a greater right to privacy than adults). If you post on the internet you are publishing. The only time you need a release is if you commercially exploit the image.

Making and selling an "art" book of people and children on public sidewalks is not a commercial enterprise and is done all the time without a release(s). Using a person's image for advertising is a comercial enterprise and requires a release.

Getting a release is always better than not having one, but it is not necessary.

As to your statement of property, once again, if you shoot someone property and you are on public property it is fair game.

Gary

"I never learned my AA BB CC's god god dammit dammit."

 

[kcon]

just found this about the laws in the uk, didn't know it was an offence to take a picture of a bank note without the relevant permission.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

 

[manaheim]

Bull. If it's considered art and you're not using it commercially, then you don't need a release.

If I shot a picture of Curtis Jackson sitting on a bench in the park crying his eyes out and was selling a limited run of prints for $5000 a piece, then I wouldn't need his permission.

There was a case were and Orthodox Jew Rabbi had his photo taken by a pretty well known street photog. He sued when he found out the guy was selling it. The ruling was that it was not being used commercially and being sold as art, so he was legally allowed to profit off of the other man's photo.

If that wasn't the case, a street photog that's selling his artwork would have to carry around millions of model release forms. Ever take a shot with more than 50 people in it?

Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial... and yeah, I've taken pictures with 50 people in it, and I would have had to gain a release from every one of them if I was using the likeness for commercial purposes. I can proudly display pictures of people on my wall at my home if I like, or publish them on my website, but if it's commercial... bzzt.

This is why you sometimes see people's faces blotted out on television shows... they didn't obtain the release from whatever person was captured.

 

[grimm5577]

As I said I'm sure there are gray areas, and I'm sure people get away with it, but that doesn't mean if someone has a problem with it, they can't make a lawsuit out of it and win.

Agree or not, Laws are laws.

Sorry I don't think that link posted is a very reputable place for info. (photoattorney) I used the below as my reference.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

If you take someones photo, with permission, and edit the photo in a mis-leading way and publish it. You can be sued... ie the in-famous oj picture...

 

[Moglex]

Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial... and yeah, I've taken pictures with 50 people in it, and I would have had to gain a release from every one of them if I was using the likeness for commercial purposes.

That doesn't really make a lot of sense.

What is the cut-off point in terms of numbers of people shown?.

I'm sure I have seen images of packed football stadia used for commercial purposes and I'm damn sure they didn't get a release from each person there.

It would be nigh on impossible to get a release from every person even in a wide angle shot of a busy street.

There surely must be some definition of a 'crowd'.