Rules on street photography

[unpopular]

There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.

 

[Ballistics]

Which US law?

Don't even bother.

 

[skieur]

There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.

The act of taking photos is LEGAL with the usual few exceptions of top secret, child porn, etc. If the photos have not violated these few exceptions then, the photographer can publish the photos or make any other use of them, with the exception of advertising which requires the permission of the person subject in the photo.

And please! Don't be sufficiently silly to ask me what law specifies what is NOT ILLEGAL. You know *** well that laws are not written that way.

skieur

 

[fmw]

Mr. Campbell is correct. I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round. She was certainly in public. The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit. There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.

 

[usayit]

wah? fmw? blast from the past?

 

[skieur]

Mr. Campbell is correct. I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round. She was certainly in public. The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit. There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.

Who is Mr. Campbell???? Without details your example is meaningless. Who? What? Where? When? Who won? What was the judgement?...etc.

skieur

 

[Ballistics]

Without details your example is meaningless.
skieur

Awesome.

 

[unpopular]

There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.

The act of taking photos is LEGAL with the usual few exceptions of top secret, child porn, etc. If the photos have not violated these few exceptions then, the photographer can publish the photos or make any other use of them, with the exception of advertising which requires the permission of the person subject in the photo.

And please! Don't be sufficiently silly to ask me what law specifies what is NOT ILLEGAL. You know *** well that laws are not written that way.

skieur

The issue here isn't if taking the photo was legal or not, but whether or not a photograph obtained while criminally trespassing is subject to property seizure, with the proceeds being the intellectual property and the crime being trespassing. This only applies in jurisdictions where trespassing is a criminal offense.

In this case, while it is not illegal to take the photo the property which results from the photo having been taken may have been obtained illegally and COULD BE in THEORY subject to court-compelled seizure. This may apply, again, in theory, in jurisdictions (not NY state, apparently) where trespassing alone is a crime.

So, as you can see (hopefully) there are two issues here: one is the act of taking a photograph, and the other is the ownership of the intellectual property of the photograph that had been taken. In any case, the photographer legally owns the IP unless the court orders otherwise - in other words, simply trespassing in itself does not void your copyright without a court-ordered injunction - an extremely unlikely event.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

 

[swiftparkour94]

My rule that applies to me: Shoot people. Don't make money with photos of candid street subjects. Use them as examples of your candid taking skills to add to your portfolio. I don't want to start any trouble whatsoever.

I don't plan on making money shooting street candid, however if I ever apply for shooting for the city or local paper then they are there when I need them to show as examples along with the stories behind them

 

[gsgary]

If people dont want to be photographed they should stay in

 

[unpopular]

Or look like a long haired hippy freak that lives in an unauthorized cabin on public land.

Thats what I do.

 

[fmw]

Mr. Campbell is correct. I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round. She was certainly in public. The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit. There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.

Who is Mr. Campbell???? Without details your example is meaningless. Who? What? Where? When? Who won? What was the judgement?...etc.

skieur

Mr. Campbell is a man who posted earlier in this thread with an accurate assessment of commercial use images. As to the court case, my old mind doesn't remember the details other than than the photographer lost the case. If it is meaningless then so be it. I recommend you ignore it.

 

[skieur]

There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.

The act of taking photos is LEGAL with the usual few exceptions of top secret, child porn, etc. If the photos have not violated these few exceptions then, the photographer can publish the photos or make any other use of them, with the exception of advertising which requires the permission of the person subject in the photo.

And please! Don't be sufficiently silly to ask me what law specifies what is NOT ILLEGAL. You know *** well that laws are not written that way.

skieur

The issue here isn't if taking the photo was legal or not, but whether or not a photograph obtained while criminally trespassing is subject to property seizure, with the proceeds being the intellectual property and the crime being trespassing. This only applies in jurisdictions where trespassing is a criminal offense.

In this case, while it is not illegal to take the photo the property which results from the photo having been taken may have been obtained illegally and COULD BE in THEORY subject to court-compelled seizure. This may apply, again, in theory, in jurisdictions (not NY state, apparently) where trespassing alone is a crime.

So, as you can see (hopefully) there are two issues here: one is the act of taking a photograph, and the other is the ownership of the intellectual property of the photograph that had been taken. In any case, the photographer legally owns the IP unless the court orders otherwise - in other words, simply trespassing in itself does not void your copyright without a court-ordered injunction - an extremely unlikely event.

See Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And to add, there was no benefit from an unlawful activity, since taking pictures is NOT unlawful, as the New York Judge ruled.

Therefore the photographer retained all rights to his photos.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Mr. Campbell is correct. I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round. She was certainly in public. The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit. There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.

Who is Mr. Campbell???? Without details your example is meaningless. Who? What? Where? When? Who won? What was the judgement?...etc.

skieur

Mr. Campbell is a man who posted earlier in this thread with an accurate assessment of commercial use images. As to the court case, my old mind doesn't remember the details other than than the photographer lost the case. If it is meaningless then so be it. I recommend you ignore it.

No it wasn't. Commercial use has been defined as for ADVERTISING PURPOSES. A very prominent case in New York determined that definition. The details are easy to find, related to a shot of a rabbi which was taken in the street and sold at a gallery. The rabbi sued but the photographer won.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

The act of taking photos is LEGAL with the usual few exceptions of top secret, child porn, etc. If the photos have not violated these few exceptions then, the photographer can publish the photos or make any other use of them, with the exception of advertising which requires the permission of the person subject in the photo.

And please! Don't be sufficiently silly to ask me what law specifies what is NOT ILLEGAL. You know *** well that laws are not written that way.

skieur

The issue here isn't if taking the photo was legal or not, but whether or not a photograph obtained while criminally trespassing is subject to property seizure, with the proceeds being the intellectual property and the crime being trespassing. This only applies in jurisdictions where trespassing is a criminal offense.

In this case, while it is not illegal to take the photo the property which results from the photo having been taken may have been obtained illegally and COULD BE in THEORY subject to court-compelled seizure. This may apply, again, in theory, in jurisdictions (not NY state, apparently) where trespassing alone is a crime.

So, as you can see (hopefully) there are two issues here: one is the act of taking a photograph, and the other is the ownership of the intellectual property of the photograph that had been taken. In any case, the photographer legally owns the IP unless the court orders otherwise - in other words, simply trespassing in itself does not void your copyright without a court-ordered injunction - an extremely unlikely event.

See Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And to add, there was no benefit from an unlawful activity, since taking pictures is NOT unlawful, as the New York Judge ruled.

Therefore the photographer retained all rights to his photos.

skieur

NEW
YORK
COURT
DECISIONS
DON'T
APPLY
IN
MONTANA

or anywhere else outside that court's jurisdiction aside from primary persuasive argument​