Question About People Taking Pictures of You

[KmH]

HOWEVER if you wish to use the images commercially use must have the permission of the person photographed or,in the case of property, the permission of the owner or manager.
I spend more time getting permission than I do making images.

That's pretty accurate, if simplistic, when it comes to people in a photo, but it's not very accurate about property.

Anyone interested in more details can read both the model and property release sections of - A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

 

[MTVision]

D R A M A.

Q U E E N.

By the way is 19 yrs old a legal age to be hanging out in a hotel bar/pub in Canada?

I used to go to Montreal - to the bars - when I was 15. I live about a half hour from Canada and there is a bar not too far across the border that actually catered to the underage Americans. Figured Montreal would be a little different and actually card people but they didn't.

Things have probably changed in the last 10 years - especially with the needing a passport/enhanced license to cross the border.

 

[HughGuessWho]

There is a difference between what is LEGALLY right and what us MORALLY right. I agree that it would not be difficult to ask first. BUT a person cannot logically expect "privacy" when they are in public. I don't think you gave a legal obligation unless you use the picture for profit. And, as a photographer / artist, its mighty difficult taking candid "street shots" when you inform the person that you are about to take their picture. Just sayin'.

 

[jowensphoto]

There is a difference between what is LEGALLY right and what us MORALLY right. I agree that it would not be difficult to ask first. BUT a person cannot logically expect "privacy" when they are in public. I don't think you gave a legal obligation unless you use the picture for profit. And, as a photographer / artist, its mighty difficult taking candid "street shots" when you inform the person that you are about to take their picture. Just sayin'.

How is taking a photo of someone immoral? Don't intend to argue, just wondering why you think that.

 

[MTVision]

I'm not sure how you can make such a statement. Most of privacy is personal perception. While in the same situation you might not feel your privacy was violated, the OP clearly has a different perception, to which she is entitled.

Personally, I feel that privacy laws are too lax. An individual should have the right to control their taking of a photograph in situations like this. Why should we as photographers have a right to take the photograph of someone who clearly doesn't want to be photographed? Really, how much effort does it take to ask someone if they mind having their photograph taken?

I have to agree with you. Maybe the OP could've handled it differently but if she didn't want her picture taken then she should have the right to request them to stop and ask them to delete any photos of her. Yeah deleted photos can be recovered but the person should be respected. Who knows maybe she's in witness protection, running from an abusive husband or the million other reasons she didn't want her picture taken.

There have been some people on here who I wouldn't want to see snapping pictures of me - like this one guy who wanted to publish a book of photos of girls butts that he took without the women knowing.

I also don't think that her screen name means anything or has anything to do with not wanting her picture taken.

 

[HughGuessWho]

There is a difference between what is LEGALLY right and what us MORALLY right. I agree that it would not be difficult to ask first. BUT a person cannot logically expect "privacy" when they are in public. I don't think you gave a legal obligation unless you use the picture for profit. And, as a photographer / artist, its mighty difficult taking candid "street shots" when you inform the person that you are about to take their picture. Just sayin'.

How is taking a photo of someone immoral? Don't intend to argue, just wondering why you think that.

I didnt suggest it was. Responding to tirediron's point I'm simply says that one may feel that they have an obligation to ask someone before they take their picture, based on THEIR Moral Convictions. And that fine. Nothing wrong with that. But you have no LEGAL obligation to do so. Just my opinion. Can you say "Google-Mobile"?

 

[jowensphoto]

There is a difference between what is LEGALLY right and what us MORALLY right. I agree that it would not be difficult to ask first. BUT a person cannot logically expect "privacy" when they are in public. I don't think you gave a legal obligation unless you use the picture for profit. And, as a photographer / artist, its mighty difficult taking candid "street shots" when you inform the person that you are about to take their picture. Just sayin'.

How is taking a photo of someone immoral? Don't intend to argue, just wondering why you think that.

I didnt suggest it was. Responding to tirediron's point I'm simply says that one may feel that they have an obligation to ask someone before they take their picture, based on THEIR Moral Convictions. And that fine. Nothing wrong with that. But you have no LEGAL obligation to do so. Just my opinion. Can you say "Google-Mobile"?

Ahhhh gotcha. I see what you're saying now.

 

[jowensphoto]

Google-mobile? Not sure I follow... must.get.sleep.

 

[HughGuessWho]

I'm not sure how you can make such a statement. Most of privacy is personal perception. While in the same situation you might not feel your privacy was violated, the OP clearly has a different perception, to which she is entitled.

Personally, I feel that privacy laws are too lax. An individual should have the right to control their taking of a photograph in situations like this. Why should we as photographers have a right to take the photograph of someone who clearly doesn't want to be photographed? Really, how much effort does it take to ask someone if they mind having their photograph taken?

I have to agree with you. Maybe the OP could've handled it differently but if she didn't want her picture taken then she should have the right to request them to stop and ask them to delete any photos of her. Yeah deleted photos can be recovered but the person should be respected. Who knows maybe she's in witness protection, running from an abusive husband or the million other reasons she didn't want her picture taken.

There have been some people on here who I wouldn't want to see snapping pictures of me - like this one guy who wanted to publish a book of photos of girls butts that he took without the women knowing.

I also don't think that her screen name means anything or has anything to do with not wanting her picture taken.

And I agree 100%. Going full circle back to my Moral vs Legal comment. Just because something is LEGAL, it doesnt mean you SHOULD do it. A considetate and decent person would agree to not take any more pictures, if asked and would delete what were already taken. BUT, it this person macrched up to me and DEMANDED that I delete them (her words), I would have laughed at her, even if I deleted them on my own after the fact, I would not have given her that satisfaction.

 

[bhop]

Meh.. I disagree. It's just a photo from across the bar in a public environment. Her privacy was not violated. People are just way too sensitive these days over nothing.

I'm not sure how you can make such a statement. Most of privacy is personal perception. While in the same situation you might not feel your privacy was violated, the OP clearly has a different perception, to which she is entitled.

Personally, I feel that privacy laws are too lax. An individual should have the right to control their taking of a photograph in situations like this. Why should we as photographers have a right to take the photograph of someone who clearly doesn't want to be photographed? Really, how much effort does it take to ask someone if they mind having their photograph taken?

Because she was in a public place. She simply had no expectation of privacy. People that want privacy in a bar pay for the vip rooms, or don't go to them.

I personally don't take pics of people I don't know in bars or whatever, but it's not any invasion of privacy unless the establishment says photography's not allowed.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Google-mobile? Not sure I follow... must.get.sleep.

The Google cars that are driving down the roads in most every populated area taking pictures of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING within view from the public road. Surely everyone has heard about that. People have been photographed in every imaginable way. And I think one should be much more concerned with what pictures Google has than some guy taking picture with his cell phone.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[jowensphoto]

Again, gotcha. LOL

Some of those google photos are ridiculous; drug deals, sex acts, police brutality. Ridiculous.

 

[mishele]

Wow, somebody is a little high on themself.....lol
Beauty is only skin deep....huh?! lol

S sorry I missed this party yesterday!!!

 

[tirediron]

Because she was in a public place. She simply had no expectation of privacy.

First of all, she was NOT in a public place, she was in publicly accessible private property. NOT the same thing at all. Being a curious person by nature, I took a few minutes of my lunch-hour to look further into it (and note: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one television), and it seems that there are a couple of potential precidents in Canadian law regarding violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy that could apply depending on the type of venue.

 

[CCericola]

I'm 99% sure this story is fake folks.