Shooting people without their consent

manda · Nov 7, 2003

Whats the deal on this really?
Especailly if the people are not within "do u mind if i take your photo?" distance.

Are there laws that permit me from taking photogrpahs of people without them knowing?
More importantly, if I then upload them on my website, could I get myself sued?

Thoughts, oh lovely and knowledgeable ones...

Dew · Nov 7, 2003

im not sure what the laws are, they probably vary from country to country

i've photographed people on the street before without their consent (they werent close enough to ask) ... they can sue me if they want ... they wont get much :lol:

... but if i made money from their photograph, i wouldnt mind sharing the profit

simnine · Nov 7, 2003

I cannot remember where I found this, so I uploaded it to my site.

http://www.simnine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Shubin · Nov 7, 2003

I've been wondering the same thing, Manda.

You'll notice that my gallery (shamelessly linked below) has NO identifiable pictures of my kids or anyone I know. This is because I am paranoid about pics of my kids.

I've read a half reasonable rant from a Boston based teacher who HATED photography students and tourists in his picturesque little town because he didn't want to end up on the 'net or on a gallery wall from their photos.

On the other hand, my two favorate photogs from another forum post the most lovely pictures of people frequently. Their themed photos of sadness, contemplation, and joy are so beautiful that I want to cry. I was naive enough for a while to think that they were all pictures of models, until one of them PM'ed me that they were just people on the street. Often the emotion was so intense....

Forget the fear of being sued, I don't want to take a picture of a person in an identifiable setting, and find that person was stalked because of it. There are some weird f@(k!^g people out there.

Others may have a definite standpoint one way or the other. This theme is not a new one to our world, but it is a theme that recently has new meaning.

Do you expect privacy while walking through the city? What about on your favorate beach? What about in your favorate resturant? What about when you're in your robe getting the paper off the front lawn on a Saturday?

If someone was taking pictures of your kids at the park would you leave? Confront the photographer? Ask for royalties?

There's always a '...then again...' statement: If you had your camera and you saw a heartfelt emotional private scene would you go for the Pulitzer or avert your eyes?

My little rant is over for now, but this subject isn't.

Sharkbait · Nov 7, 2003

simnine said:
I cannot remember where I found this, so I uploaded it to my site.

http://www.simnine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

GREAT info! Thanks!

bogleric · Nov 7, 2003

I do know that in the recent years to print anything with a minor in the picture that is clearly identifiable requires explicit permission from their guardian.

bogleric · Nov 7, 2003

That is an excellent source of information. However I still question the ability to photograph people in detail / clearly identifiable shots. There are so many photo organizations that push getting permission in writing for that.

Does anyone have any more sources... it is always great to check 3 for consistency.

mrsid99 · Nov 7, 2003

I like the militaries approach....they're always shooting people without their consent!

drlynn · Nov 10, 2003

There was an article in Popular Photography & Imaging about this very topic a few months ago by Victor Perlman, attorney for the American Society of Media Photographers.

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=609

To sum up his main points, if the person is identifiable AND you are going to make money from the photo, then you need a model release. If the photo is being published as part of a news story, the rules are more relaxed. If the photos are of famous people, you will probably have more trouble.

Phodog · Nov 12, 2003

Pretty much the way it works is if your going to use a photo of a person or location for profit "advertising" rather than for "editorial" news. You must have a model or property release. Or you can't publish the work.
And that's just the basics, it can get very tricky.

GerryDavid · Nov 12, 2003

It was my understanding that if the place the picture was taken was public, then the picture is open game. :0) Cuz if you take a picture at a public park during the hight of holidays, you would have to get permission of a few hundred people. Thats alot of work for one picture. *Smirks*. But if the land was private, then you need permission.

Phodog · Nov 13, 2003

Ok,
you can take any picture you want - whenever you want it's a free country (still) - the problems arise when you want to sell a picture to a magazine - a company - greeting cards - etc etc. then you must have a release to prove you had the agreement of the person or location.

simnine · Nov 13, 2003

drlynn said:
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=609

Good information there. Thanks drlynn.

drlynn · Nov 13, 2003

Phodog said:
Ok,
you can take any picture you want - whenever you want it's a free country (still) - the problems arise when you want to sell a picture to a magazine - a company - greeting cards - etc etc. then you must have a release to prove you had the agreement of the person or location.

Phodog is absolutely correct. Releases are only a problem if you are planning to sell or publish your work. My understanding is that newspaper employees (including freelancers) have a bit more leeway if the photo is part of a news story.

Keep in mind that any time a legality is involved, especially one involving money, there will be lawyers, and where there are lawyers, there are differing interpretations, gray areas, etc. So, when in doubt, get a release!