Rules on street photography

[TCampbell]

I suppose I'm probably Mr. Campbell (Tim). I did some digging a while ago and found several reference sites created by photographers who did some considerable research. I then spoke to several personal friends who happen to be attorneys... although none of them are attorneys with a speciality in this area.

What you are, in effect, saying when you mention that in NY it was established that "commercial" use was defined as "advertising purposes" is that a jury in New York decide based on that fact.

But one thing my attorney friends are fond of reminding me is that: You can get away with anything as long as you are SURE that you can get 12 people to go along with you (referring to the assumption that a jury is 12 people... by the way in my local court a jury is only 6 people and a 7th "alternate"... it turns out the number of people on a jury isn't even a constant from place to place.).

If money changes hands (or even if there's an offer for money to change hands) someone can argue that you are engaging in "commerce". The fact that it changed hands for purposes of "advertising" could be interpreted differently in a different court.

I suppose my point in all of this is: if you are seriously concerned about your legal rights, or, if you've been challenged about one of your images, then you really should consult an expert who specializes in this area in YOUR locality. All you'll get from the internet is generalizations based on "patterns" that most localities tend to pattern their laws after other localities. That will be of little consequence if you're accused of violating some law or someone else's rights only to find out that there's some variation in the law in the location where you took the shot.

Lastly... a good attorney isn't someone who goes to court for you and wins. Rather... a good attorney is someone who gives you sound advice that keeps you from ending up in court in the first place. It costs money to go to court. You might find an attorney to represent you for a percentage of the winnings when you are the one suing someone else. When you are hiring an attorney to defend you from a civil suite, there are generally no attorneys who take those cases on "contingency" (because "winning" really just means you don't have to pay out.) That means that even if you are right, it may cost you substantially to prove that you are right.

 

[gsgary]

What about books,HCB has sold thousands but i bet he had no releases from people

 

[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​

Sure they do. That is the definition in media law handbooks and the definition that journalists work under, throughout North America.

skieur

 

[skieur]

I suppose I'm probably Mr. Campbell (Tim). I did some digging a while ago and found several reference sites created by photographers who did some considerable research. I then spoke to several personal friends who happen to be attorneys... although none of them are attorneys with a speciality in this area.

What you are, in effect, saying when you mention that in NY it was established that "commercial" use was defined as "advertising purposes" is that a jury in New York decide based on that fact.

.

No actually I am saying that this is the definition used in both the US and Canada, since journalists have asserted those rights for the last several decades.

skieur

 

[bluerob]

I was shooting along Venice Beach once and was immediately harangued by "people" demanding $10 for being a "model" in the photo - not the ones that dress up or act as aliens or whatever. Thankfully, patrolling Police were nearby as it was going to turn ugly. Their attitude was that it was a public place and as long as I wasn't taking portrait type shots of people (if someone approached me and asked to see if I was on the memory card and asked to be deleted, then I had to), then I could take "general" landscape shots. I'm an Aussie that was on holidays at the time.

 

[unpopular]

Sure they do. That is the definition in media law handbooks and the definition that journalists work under, throughout North America.
skieur

Rulings in one equal or lower court can be used as persuasive argument, but they are not mandatory, and only apply in jurisdictions where the ruling can be applied.

For example: if State "a" has no law concerning chewing gum, while state "b" explicitly says it is not legal under any circumstance, a defendant in a case involving gum chewing in state "b" cannot use a previous court ruling from state "a".

However, if the US supreme court rules that chewing gum is a fundamental or constitutional right, then the defendant in state "b" can freely chew gum.

Under your logic, the supreme court has no function.

 

[gsgary]

Rulings in one equal or lower court can be used as persuasive argument, but they are not mandatory, and only apply in jurisdictions where the ruling can be applied.

For example: if State "a" has no law concerning chewing gum, while state "b" explicitly says it is not legal under any circumstance, a defendant in a case involving gum chewing in state "b" cannot use a previous court ruling from state "a".

However, if the US supreme court rules that chewing gum is a fundamental or constitutional right, then the defendant in state "b" can freely chew gum.

Under your logic, the supreme court has no function.

So is it ok to chew gum while shooting on the street ? not that i chew gum it really pisses me off all the gum on the pathment

 

[unpopular]

Unless you're in State B, though I understand that most states have a No Chewing and Shooting law.

 

[jessicagreen765]

You can anything that is public, just don't take pictures of people.

 

[The_Traveler]

So is it ok to chew gum while shooting on the street ? not that chew gum it really pisses me off all the gum on the pathment

Not in Singapore.

 

[skieur]

I was shooting along Venice Beach once and was immediately harangued by "people" demanding $10 for being a "model" in the photo - not the ones that dress up or act as aliens or whatever. Thankfully, patrolling Police were nearby as it was going to turn ugly. Their attitude was that it was a public place and as long as I wasn't taking portrait type shots of people (if someone approached me and asked to see if I was on the memory card and asked to be deleted, then I had to), then I could take "general" landscape shots. I'm an Aussie that was on holidays at the time.

Learn your rights. You do not even have to show the police your memory card without a warrant. They can also be charged with harassing you.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Sure they do. That is the definition in media law handbooks and the definition that journalists work under, throughout North America.
skieur

Rulings in one equal or lower court can be used as persuasive argument, but they are not mandatory, and only apply in jurisdictions where the ruling can be applied.

For example: if State "a" has no law concerning chewing gum, while state "b" explicitly says it is not legal under any circumstance, a defendant in a case involving gum chewing in state "b" cannot use a previous court ruling from state "a".

However, if the US supreme court rules that chewing gum is a fundamental or constitutional right, then the defendant in state "b" can freely chew gum.

Under your logic, the supreme court has no function.

The only issue related to publishing a photo of someone taken in a public place relates to privacy and by law there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. This includes a public place like a mall that is private property. All courts have backed that up.

skieur

 

[skieur]

You can anything that is public, just don't take pictures of people.

I take all the pictures of people I wish in public and have not even been approached by anyone, public, security, or police.

skieur

 

[manaheim]

Die thread, DIE!

 

[deeky]

This was interesting to read, but now I've heard it all at least three times.

You know what they say about a dead horse...... kick it. Kick it! KICK IT!!!!!! (Insert sarcasm here)