Posting photos that show other peaple

[cumi]

A lagal question.

Is it actally legal to post a candid photo, a street photo or any other photo taken from a stranger without having the stranger allowed to do it?

I talk with police spokesman in Austria because of something else (nothing bad ), but then this theme came up to and the spokesman said:

1. It is legal to photograph anything and anybody on public places if explicitly not forbidden (no photograph-sign like on borders-crossings, etc). Important to mention here: public place. If om private property, the owner may not allow, so the best is to ask...

2. It is illegal to publish (internet, news, on the street, etc) a picture about someone without his/her permission. So he/she can start a process against you (and probably win). If he/she doesn't cares, no problem then. Everything else may be published legally, including: house (taken from the street), car, animals (animals are objects and no "humans"), etc.

I see here people posting candid photos, street-photos, etc. If I think on what the police-spokesman told me, these postings are surely illegal and can have consequences. I know that the probability is very-very loww of that the photographed person surfes through this forum and find a photo of himself.

Any comments on this? Admins, moderators?

 

[cumi]

I talk with police spokesman in Austria because of something else (nothing bad )

The theme was the problem of dogs, their dirt and their (un)safe behavior in our district.

So if I don't have anything else on wasting time on, I may take photos of dogs and their owners, but I mustn't publish them. Publishing not, reporting to police with the photograph = yes. They can then decide, what to do with the photo (using for identifying, etc).

 

[skieur]

I think your policeman was wrong and I am not surprised since copyright is not normally what policemen deal with, anyway.

You can take a photo of anyone in a public place and a public place is defined as a place that the general public has access to. A public place is not necessarily public property.

You can then publish that photo with a few restrictions. For example, you could publish it in a photo magazine or as an example of candid photography or on the web as an example of street photography etc. If the subject fit, it could be published in a general brochure about the city or community. What you cannot do, without permission, is use it for advertising or in a way that suggests something about the person that is not present in the photo, i.e. that he/she is a smoker, suffers from cancer, etc.

A journalistic right that applies to all photographers is that photos can be taken of, or on private property but the property owner or his representative has the right to remove you from the property. If you leave voluntarily then you cannot be charged with trespassing. That is however assuming you simply for example walked onto the property. Climbing a fence to get there would be a different story.

There is no copyright on property shots, so obviously you can use shots taken on private property with few limitations. You would violate other laws for example if you implied wrongly that the property was for sale or that it was a drug operation etc. Put a little differently the first owner of copyright as defined in law is the photographer who took the shot, not the owner of property in the photo.

skieur

 

[nomade]

I donno about Australia, but here it's not illegal, if this photo was taken in a private property, you need to ask for permission, if you used photos of people you don't know in an inappropriate manner, like using them as adult material, they will be prosecuted, once they get caught, these cases are very common these days.

 

[skieur]

I donno about Australia, but here it's not illegal, if this photo was taken in a private property, you need to ask for permission, if you used photos of people you don't know in an inappropriate manner, like using them as adult material, they will be prosecuted, once they get caught, these cases are very common these days.

Cumi is from Austria, NOT Australia, and where is the here, you are talking about?

skieur

 

[gizmo2071]

As long as the image is taken in public space then you can do as you wish with it without making money from it.

 

[sabbath999]

As a total aside, I am always extremely careful to not identify children in any way on the web... there are simply too many sicko predators out there.

 

[skieur]

As long as the image is taken in public space then you can do as you wish with it without making money from it.

Money is not the issue and totally irrelevant. It is whether through your use of the image that you are implying something about the individual that may not be true....i.e. that they drink coke, live in a condo etc.

On the other hand, if you publish it for money as strictly street photography or candid photography , then it is legal and legitimate.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

It changes depending on the country. In Australia it is legal to photograph anything or anyone who doesn't have a reasonable right to privacy. The laws being case law that provides a whole load of questionables.

Like it's legal to photograph anyone on public property, there's nothing they can do about that.
Providing a place like BurgerKing allow photography it's legal to photograph a group of people enjoying their lunch. It is then possibly not legal to photograph a loner sitting in a corner trying to stay as far away from everyone. He expects privacy.
It is legal to stand outside someone's property and photograph him standing on the balcony, or even in his house. It would not be legal to do it from 200m away with a 600mm lens.

 

[nomade]

Cumi is from Austria, NOT Australia, and where is the here, you are talking about?

skieur

I saw it Australia, shoot me!!

And I must have forgotten to put where I am from in my profile, that's my bad. It's Egypt.

 

[cumi]

Thanks guys for the useful infos.

 

[MarkoG]

what r u say about it?

http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=2148827&ref=author

 

[Mike_E]

I believe LaFoto has posted on this very subject and from what I remember if you are under German law you may Not publish any photo of anyone without their permission. She did not say whether or not you could photograph someone from the back and get by with it.

Here in the states you can shoot anyone and publish for journalistic purposes. You may even sell the image so long as the person is not recognizable (at a distance or from the back with no identifiable marks). Should they be recognizable you then need a model release.

If you think you are going to need one you can have them printed onto a pad with carbons and carry them with you easily. If you leave a space on it for an e-mail address you are more likely to get a positive response when you tell them that you will send a copy to them as a souvenir. (at 72 dpi and the address of you gallery of course )

mike

 

[Jeffm73]

As a total aside, I am always extremely careful to not identify children in any way on the web... there are simply too many sicko predators out there.

I hear ya. I don't take candids of children for just that reason

 

[skieur]

I believe LaFoto has posted on this very subject and from what I remember if you are under German law you may Not publish any photo of anyone without their permission. She did not say whether or not you could photograph someone from the back and get by with it.

Here in the states you can shoot anyone and publish for journalistic purposes. You may even sell the image so long as the person is not recognizable (at a distance or from the back with no identifiable marks). Should they be recognizable you then need a model release.

mike

I believe you are wrong there Mike. A model release is needed for advertising photography and when shooting models, not for general photography in a public place in either the US or Canada.

skieur