taking pics in public.

[TheOtherBob]

Well, I've been in a lot of street pictures, but most of them were accidents - my commute involves walking through Times Square. But one time I was coming home from work late at night, and was leaning on a light post near Times Square waiting for the light to change so I could cross - and someone walked by and took my picture. I didn't find it insulting or annoying at all - I thought it was very...neat, for lack of a better word. I don't know why they thought I was worth photographing, but I enjoyed knowing that they thought so.

 

[Sideburns]

Not sure where I made the connection between shooting in public to shooting people or children in public.

Don't get me wrong, children playing in the park and capturing that in a photo candidly is probably the best subject for photography. This isn't just children, but I know my wife would not want her photo taken or to find it in someone's "internet photo blog" as well. But, I see all the time, photos posted on forums I'm now visiting with the statements that "I don't know who that is, but it was a great shot. Here it is...." kind of thing. But, it never seems to be that these people think about what the people who are the subject feel about it. No one thinks to respect other people in this world (not only with this subject but just in general.)

My thoughts are not just with children, but respect to everyone, kids and adults.

I think you have a twisted perspective on this. Maybe you're one of those big brother is watching us guys.

Whether or not someone takes your picture while swinging on the swings at the park...you're in plain view for the whole surrounding area to see. What's the difference if it's just them seeing you, or if it's a few people online appreciating a good photograph?

I'm just sayin...it's gonna happen sometimes...and it's not really an issue of privacy whatsoever. It's an issue with people all up in arms about their so called "rights". (maybe to not have their picture taken IN PUBLIC).

The issue would be if someone tried to sell it..then ya...your likeness is being used and you deserve compensation...but whatever.

 

[gtwosaints]

To me it really depends on the shot. I haven't really had experience but, I can say what I would do. If it's like a shot of two kids on a swing, I'm not really going to ask for permission unless the kids are bothered or the parents don't want me to. If they do I will probably try to persuade them if it's a great shot and ask if I can take a different photo. If no then it's usually no unless I must have the shot. I know privacy is difficult but, when dealing with kids I like to be a bit careful. If I'm shooting you know like a portrait outside I will definitely ask for permission from the parent. I'm not sure parents want to see their kid posing for a stranger with a camera. If the parent doesn't like it then I would probably delete it and try again. Now adults is a bit of a different story.

 

[nagoshua]

Im just wondering though... what is the law on this (british ones preferably lol). If someone is in a public space are you allowed to take a photo of them and do they have the right to say what you can and cant do with it?

 

[skieur]

You are allowed to take a photo of almost anything in a place to which the general public has access with a few common sense exceptions such as change rooms, courts in session, washrooms etc. The restriction on use is that advertising use requires a model release since this kind of use takes it out of context in that the person does not necessarily follow a particular diet program etc.

You may however use it on a website, display or sell it as an art photo or use it in a magazine. This is the case in non-French speaking countries.
In France they are still arguing over photo rights issues and in Québec there have been some contrary rulings that have not been appealed, so until a ruling gets further to Appeal Court or the Supreme Court, it is hard to say what it means in terms of precedence.

skieur

 

[Lostfiniel]

Im just wondering though... what is the law on this (british ones preferably lol). If someone is in a public space are you allowed to take a photo of them and do they have the right to say what you can and cant do with it?

You are allowed to take a photo of almost anything in a place to which the general public has access with a few common sense exceptions such as change rooms, courts in session, washrooms etc. The restriction on use is that advertising use requires a model release since this kind of use takes it out of context in that the person does not necessarily follow a particular diet program etc.

My understanding on model releases and public photos was different. I have always been lead to believe that a public photo (of people) is fine as long as there is a group in the shot or the focus is not on an individual person. If you are walking down a sidewalk and zoom in on someone's face for a close-up, (from my understanding) you would need a model release. Even if it wasn't a close-up, as long as the focus is on one or two individual people you would need one.

Now, I could be wrong. But, this is why I am very cautious of public photos. i tend to shoot scenery and animals to be safe. And surfers, they don't seem to notice.

I had also understood that shooting children as individuals or a couple children would require a photo release signed by a parent or guardian.

 

[azruial]

There are lots of long and sometimes angry threads about legality... http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105890&

I liked this link from kundalini, it kept me busy for a while(!) and gave a weakly cited but informative overview with at least as much credibility as any forum.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

But that's off-topic for this thread!!
Personally, I'm scared s#*!-less when it comes to taking pics that include people in public, it just feels awkward for me and I feel that I should work on it. I plan to head downtown to some tourist spots because I feel like that will be an easier environment to take candids.

 

[JerryPH]

Self confidence is a big part of the visual image a photographer projects.

Most definately.

I have not worn a tie except to funerals since retiring a manager a few years back.

I was not suggesting that everyone do it all the time, just try it as a test. Appearance makes a big difference, especially with the law. I know profiling is inherently wrong, however I have been testing it out for years.

Wear dirty jean shorts and a torn t-shirt to an airport and you are almost guaranteed a cavity search (lol). Wear a white shirt, tie and pressed pants, and you get through with a lot less hassle. Of course profiling at an airport is more than just physical appearance, it unfortunately often involves race colour or creed... but this does work, please believe me when I say that. In the last 30 or so flights I have gone on and tested this with, I always experienced more negative attention when attire was not neat in appearance.

The location also makes a big impact in your acceptance. Bluejeans are OK at the county fair, or beach front. Something slightly more professional works better on city streets and events. JMHO.

Yes I agree. As Imentioned, we're discussing an average afternoon downtown, just clicking away at a few street scenes. Wearing a suit and tie at the beach will definately get you the attention of the wrong people... the guys with the white jackets ready to take you away.

 

[PhotogGirl]

I'm new here, but just read this topic from beginning to end. I struggle with street photography, but I love to do it on days I feel confident. I try not to intrude, I just casually "go about my business" and most of the time people don't even notice they're being photographed.

 

[hawkeye]

so there are powerful lobbyists for photography to keep the "rights" in the law....

lobbyists?

Yeah, there are lobbyists all over washington there to protect the rights to use your camera in public! Not that they have more important issues to lobby... like medical research, civil rights, tobacco and the like :er:

without these powerful lobbyist it would be against the law to have a camera at public... thank goodness for the work they do [/sarcasm]

 

[skieur]

My understanding on model releases and public photos was different. I have always been lead to believe that a public photo (of people) is fine as long as there is a group in the shot or the focus is not on an individual person. If you are walking down a sidewalk and zoom in on someone's face for a close-up, (from my understanding) you would need a model release. Even if it wasn't a close-up, as long as the focus is on one or two individual people you would need one.

Now, I could be wrong. But, this is why I am very cautious of public photos. i tend to shoot scenery and animals to be safe. And surfers, they don't seem to notice.

I had also understood that shooting children as individuals or a couple children would require a photo release signed by a parent or guardian.

No, yours is the misunderstanding of the use of model releases. They are more for advertising purposes than for any other reason.

skieur

 

[jstuedle]

No, yours is the misunderstanding of the use of model releases. They are more for advertising purposes than for any other reason.

skieur

True, a release is only needed if you intend to profit from your photos.

 

[rob91]

Not sure where I made the connection between shooting in public to shooting people or children in public.

Don't get me wrong, children playing in the park and capturing that in a photo candidly is probably the best subject for photography. This isn't just children, but I know my wife would not want her photo taken or to find it in someone's "internet photo blog" as well. But, I see all the time, photos posted on forums I'm now visiting with the statements that "I don't know who that is, but it was a great shot. Here it is...." kind of thing. But, it never seems to be that these people think about what the people who are the subject feel about it. No one thinks to respect other people in this world (not only with this subject but just in general.)

My thoughts are not just with children, but respect to everyone, kids and adults.

If you make it your business to photograph the world then that also includes the people in it.

 

[skieur]

True, a release is only needed if you intend to profit from your photos.

Not quite correct, street photography as art has sold for high prices, been displayed on sale in galleries and been published in magazines without the need or requirement of a model release and been displayed on web sites.

skieur

 

[ThePup]

Personally, I'm scared s#*!-less when it comes to taking pics that include people in public, it just feels awkward for me and I feel that I should work on it. I plan to head downtown to some tourist spots because I feel like that will be an easier environment to take candids.

I'm in the same boat Went out today with the camera whilst the car was being serviced, and missed a number of great shots due to lack of confidence. Did take one average shot of a construction worker, and as I got closer was asked "What are the photos for?" I Got nervous and said, as politely as I could "Just for the sake of taking photos - I enjoy it". Turns out he enjoys photography too (Though mainly underwater - He dives too), and we chatted for about 10 minutes about it before he went back to work That actually boosted my confidence a little.

True, a release is only needed if you intend to profit from your photos.

Not quite - A Model release is only needed if you intend to make it appear that the person in the photo is endorsing a product... (Which includes being on the front of a magazine, it appears as though they are endorsing the Magazine... INSIDE the magazine doesn't require a release though.) Print and sell all the copies you like, as long as it's not endorsing a product.