# permission or not?



## SimplyMo (Jul 23, 2008)

im looking for every photographer's oppinion possible on this topic... it's my biggest weakness as a photographer that loves photographing people, especially candid--in everyday life.

when you're photographing people, in public, do you ask for people's permission? or do you shoot sort of inconspicuously (try to just blend in with the public)? do you use a zoom lens?
or do you just not care whether your noticed or not (unless someone says something)?


i'm just curious.. i used to be a fearless photographer...i lived in south korea for a couple years, and i had one bad experience. me not being asian, i surely stood out in a crowd. i was standing a bit far from a food stand, shooting the food stand and the surrounding people, and this tiny old woman came out of nowhere and almost hit the camera out of my hands...   :stun:   i know i shouldn't let one incident get in the way....


----------



## tirediron (Jul 23, 2008)

If you're shooting an image of a single person, or one in which a single individual will be prominent, than yes, definitely ask permission, especially if you intend to publish it.


----------



## timbearden (Jul 23, 2008)

If by any means you plan to publish it, then yes ask for permission.  There was a lawsuit a while back for a company where someone's shadow was in the photo.  They actually won the suit because there shadow was in the photo.  

I realize there are many photo opportunities that you could loose if you take the time to ask people.  However, if you plan to use the photos for something other than your own pleasure then you always risk the chance of legal action.  Even posting photos on this forum could cross a gray line if you don't have their permission.  

I'd just rather be safe, than non safe.


----------



## cdanddvdpublisher (Jul 23, 2008)

timbearden said:


> If by any means you plan to publish it, then yes ask for permission.  There was a lawsuit a while back for a company where someone's shadow was in the photo.  They actually won the suit because there shadow was in the photo.
> 
> I realize there are many photo opportunities that you could loose if you take the time to ask people.  However, if you plan to use the photos for something other than your own pleasure then you always risk the chance of legal action.  Even posting photos on this forum could cross a gray line if you don't have their permission.
> 
> I'd just rather be safe, than non safe.



+1. If anyone is recognizable or could be recognized in your photos, you're going to want to make sure that you have permission before posting it anywhere (even in a blog or on a personal web site).


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2008)

Well...

There are a few different "levels" here.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

Technically you are legally allowed to take pictures of anyone you like unless you are taking a picture of them in a situation where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy... for example, using a zoom lense while in a tree taking pictures of them in their kitchen would be considered unacceptable and potentially illegal.

At no time is anyone ever allowed to demand your camera/film/equipment. Nor are they allowed to demand that you dispose of pictures in any way shape or form. Nor are they allowed to harm you or your equipment in any way.

Now...

If you intend to use the picture for commercial purposes, you do not need to "ask their permission". You _need_ to obtain a signed release.  Getting verbal permission isn't going to do you squat if it comes to lawsuit time.

In a quick search, I couldn't find this again on the internet, so I put this form up for you.  This is a model release developed by a stock photography website intended to be used by people such as you and I (it enables us to get releases so we can put our pictures up on their site so they can make money.) 

At this link you will find some information developed by an attourney about your rights as a photographer.  I actually have several copies of this and the model release form printed, and I carry them around with me.

Laws may vary by state, of course, so you gotta be careful on this stuff, but as far as I personally know, this is correct... again... not an attourney.


----------



## KristinaS (Jul 23, 2008)

^^ Manaheim is correct.

I'd also like to add a few other circumstances. If you are a photojournalist working for a newspaper, you do not need to ask permission to shoot people in public areas unless the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy as this falls under editorial usage. 

Art also falls under editorial usage. You do not need permission from a subject if you, say, take their picture and plan to sell it in an art gallery or whatever.


----------



## timbearden (Jul 24, 2008)

This is all very true....which is why I bring forms with me to weddings so that I can use the photos online etc.


----------



## reg (Jul 24, 2008)

timbearden said:


> which is why I bring forms with me to weddings so that I can use the photos online etc.




I believe that's called a "contract".


----------



## timbearden (Jul 24, 2008)

reg said:


> I believe that's called a "contract".


Thanks for stating the obvious, but it could also be called a photography release, consent to use, etc.

The contract covers the bride and groom, but does not cover everyone else.  Which is why I bring forms, or as you say contracts, for everyone else I wish to post online.


----------



## reg (Jul 24, 2008)

timbearden said:


> Thanks for stating the obvious, but it could also be called a photography release, consent to use, etc.



Thanks for stating the obvious, but I was referring to the contract you get the B&G to sign. I'm sure you have a clause in there that says you can use all images taken in your portfolio, right?


----------



## timbearden (Jul 24, 2008)

reg said:


> Thanks for stating the obvious, but I was referring to the contract you get the B&G to sign. I'm sure you have a clause in there that says you can use all images taken in your portfolio, right?



Yes you are correct I do have that clause in the contract, but it doesn't necessarily cover photographs of other people in it.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 24, 2008)

timbearden said:


> Yes you are correct I do have that clause in the contract, but it doesn't necessarily cover photographs of other people in it.


 


reg said:


> Thanks for stating the obvious, but I was referring to the contract you get the B&G to sign. I'm sure you have a clause in there that says you can use all images taken in your portfolio, right?


 
Actually it absolutely doesn't cover any of the guests, unless all the guests sign some sort of waiver of rights as a condition of attending the wedding.  I don't recall ever doing that at a wedding. 

You have to get explicit individual signed releases from each guest you have in a picture that you want to use commercially.  These are most commonly called "releases".


----------



## ThePup (Jul 24, 2008)

KristinaS said:


> I'd also like to add a few other circumstances. If you are a photojournalist working for a newspaper, you do not need to ask permission to shoot people in public areas unless the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy



And here's the kicker - If you're NOT a photojournalist working for a newspaper, you STILL do not need to ask permission to shoot people in public areas unless the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Seriously, for most, if not all of the US, and Australia, just wander out into the streets, snap away at will, you're not breaking any laws at all.  There is cavets to this, thinks like upskirting, expectations of privacy and the like, but if you're not being stupid, or being a pervert, you're legally fine.  

This *is true* for Australia, and as far as I'm aware, US, since most of our laws are a byproduct of there anyway, and I believe a decent chunk of Europe as well (France being the biggest contraindication?)

Morally, well that's up to the individual. If you don't like it, or don't feel comfortable doing it, then don't.

Standard disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, seek professional advice, do not drive if affected, take two asprin and consult a medical practitioner in the morning, etc, etc...


----------



## patrickt (Jul 24, 2008)

I'm not addressing the legalities but rather the ethics. And, it varies. I don't always ask but I do sometimes. I know another photographer who uses a large white telephoto to take "candid" shots. I'm not comfortable doing that.

If I'm shooting one or two people, I frequently ask. I don't ask if someone is performing in public like a mime or a clown or even a weaver giving a demonstration. If someone is working in public I usually ask. If it involves a child I always ask the parents if they're around.

For street scenes with a lot of people I just shoot away.

My asking sometimes is as simple as raising the camera a bit and smiling. If the people smile back I assume I have permission. If they flip me off I probably don't.

I've also found when I ask people they tend to pose--for a bit--and then lose interest and go back to doing whatever they were doing.

Sometimes I ask after the picture is taken.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 24, 2008)

SimplyMo said:


> im looking for every photographer's oppinion possible on this topic... it's my biggest weakness as a photographer that loves photographing people, especially candid--in everyday life.
> 
> when you're photographing people, in public, do you ask for people's permission?


If you mean stuff like this:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130820
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130822 
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130824 
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130826 

Then no of course you don't need to ask. That would be totally absurd and contrary to the art form! On the other hand it might be a nice way to meet people too. 

But if you want to "feature" someone then you need to or that too would be absurd.



> or do you shoot sort of inconspicuously (try to just blend in with the public)?


Both is good. Both is different and gets different shots, expression, and actions/reactions.



> do you use a zoom lens?


Like all photography it depends on the shot but if you're using a 20mm lens and want a face shot I guess you better ask the person. 



> do you just not care whether your noticed or not (unless someone says something)?


I don't care if I'm noticed at all. In the links above I guess I was noticed for just about every shot. I made 2 new friends (one a cute young girl!) There was a few where I kinda hid behind a telephone pole though  I do care about not pissing people off. If they get upset just pan up into the sky like you're adjusting your camera or something and then don't take their photo again. Why ruin someone's day. If they don't dig it don't do it.



> i'm just curious.. i used to be a fearless photographer...i lived in south korea for a couple years, and i had one bad experience. me not being asian, i surely stood out in a crowd. i was standing a bit far from a food stand, shooting the food stand and the surrounding people, and this tiny old woman came out of nowhere and almost hit the camera out of my hands...   :stun:   i know i shouldn't let one incident get in the way....



Do what you want. If you want to curtail your behavior based on that experience then that's what you should do. Hitting is worse though. I think I would have started clowning around with her if it were me. <evil me>


----------



## Moglex (Jul 24, 2008)

ThePup said:


> This *is true* for Australia, and as far as I'm aware, US, since most of our laws are a byproduct of there anyway,



You believe that Australian law is a byproduct of US law?

Or that US law is a byproduct of Australian law?

In either case a very interesting view of the history of jurisprudence.


----------



## hsmom (Jul 24, 2008)

I work with Habitat for Humanity as their public relations person.  When we have teenagers working (under 18) I have to have the parents sign a release before I can have the pictures published in the local papers.  The paper doesn't require the release of adults.


----------



## Easy_Target (Jul 24, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Technically you are legally allowed to take pictures of anyone you like unless you are taking a picture of them in a situation where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy...
> 
> At no time is anyone ever allowed to demand your camera/film/equipment. Nor are they allowed to demand that you dispose of pictures in any way shape or form. Nor are they allowed to harm you or your equipment in any way.



That is why I don't like taking pictures of people.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 24, 2008)

Easy_Target said:


> That is why I don't like taking pictures of people.


 
  You'd prefer it if they _could_ hurt you? Sicko! :lmao:


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 24, 2008)

well this is getting interesting, isn't it?


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 24, 2008)

ThePup said:


> There is cavets to this, thinks like upskirting, expectations of privacy and the like, but if you're not being stupid, or being a pervert, you're legally fine.



So how about if you're 50 feet away with a telephoto lens and you get a closeup of someone picking their nose and post it on the web...would that be grounds for someone to sue?

(now of course this is totally hypothetical and I would never do something like that, but I'm curious about similar situations...would picking your nose be considered "expectation of privacy"?)


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 24, 2008)

well if someone is willing to pick their nose in public for anyone to see, im guessing that individual doesn't find it to be all that personal.....


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 24, 2008)

As an avid street photog ... I think the best way to be a skilled street photographer is by  people doing ... over and over.  After a while you will develop a sixth sense on what method is best in what circumstances.  Along with the acquired sixth sense you will also get a tough skin.

I never ask, I just shoot and walk ... shoot and walk.  99 out of 100 the moment you communicate with your subject (either visually or verbally) the candid magic is gone ... what first attracted you to photograph the person/scene has changed ... forever.

If the person is in public you do not need permission/consent to publish on the web.  You only need a model release if you use the image for commerical purposes (advertising, product endorsement, et cetera).  Regardless of what other may say, US law does grant minors a greater right to privacy than adults.  The bottom line though, is to use common sense.  Even if you are in the right, and you know you are in the right, there are many many people and parents out there that do not understand or respect your First Amendment rights.  

Old Stuff











New Stuff












More of my street snaps are here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1939275_S62ig#28689844_arfvR

here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/665619_ReXq3#28693845_77sK5

here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/2334019_7D6Uw#122132407_ggUeC

Gary


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 24, 2008)

that is a good question though, what things to full under the category for "expectation of privacy"?
anything that we wouldn't normally think of??


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 24, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> 99 out of 100 the moment you communicate with your subject (either visually or verbally) the candid magic is gone ... what first attracted you to photograph the person/scene has changed ... forever.


 
that's exactly why i posted this question.... i never _*want*_ to ask... for that very reason...


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 24, 2008)

seefutlung----
even in the photo of the man in the car...you didn't ask him first???


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 24, 2008)

SimplyMo said:


> seefutlung----
> even in the photo of the man in the car...you didn't ask him first???


 
Nope, didn't ask.  Look at those links, never asked a single person.  The guy in the car ... I was walking down Broadway in LA, saw the  
 photo, I turned and focused, released the shutter and walked away.

Didn't ask him either:





Gary


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 25, 2008)

Gary I looked at your shots a few months ago when you posted links, and I never get tired of that first shot of the guy in the car...something about that shot is just amazing.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> So how about if you're 50 feet away with a telephoto lens and you get a closeup of someone picking their nose and post it on the web...would that be grounds for someone to sue?
> 
> (now of course this is totally hypothetical and I would never do something like that, but I'm curious about similar situations...would picking your nose be considered "expectation of privacy"?)


 
Marcus ... a person can sue for nearly any reason ... but if/when they do sue .. you will probably win.

Gary


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Gary I looked at your shots a few months ago when you posted links, and I never get tired of that first shot of the guy in the car...something about that shot is just amazing.


 
Thanks Marcus ... if you shoot enough you will get lucky.

Gary


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 25, 2008)

> Nope, didn't ask. Look at those links, never asked a single person. The guy in the car ... I was walking down Broadway in LA, saw the
> photo, I turned and focused, released the shutter and walked away.


 
have you ever had any bad reactions from people? any bad experiences?


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

SimplyMo said:


> that is a good question though, what things to full under the category for "expectation of privacy"?
> anything that we wouldn't normally think of??


 
Back to common sense and decency.  Say a person walking down a sidewalk and has a wardrobe malfunction and they quickly duck into a doorway or run down an alley in order to fix the problem in "privacy" ... you cannot go and chase them down, snapping away.  If a person strolls down the sidewalk in their undies ... they are fair game.

If a person is giving birth in a doorway, that is fair game as news ... the public's right to know prevails over an individual's right to privacy.

So use common sense.

Gary


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

SimplyMo said:


> have you ever had any bad reactions from people? any bad experiences?


 
Rarely, the big guy under "New" actually grabbed by camera.  I turned and walk the opposite direction ... drama over.  I used to be a press photog ... so I dress "professionally" (long pants, sleeved shirt, no sandels), and act professionally, as if I belonged on the street.  A trick I learned from working news ... if you don't want to be noticed then become a part of and blend into the crowd.  The ol' hiding in plain sight thing.  So I try to flow with the street, I act as if I belong there as much as the people I photograph ... since I project ... and they can sense that I belong there ... I get little flak.  Plus I'm usually always moving.  Shoot and walk ... shoot and walk.

Once again ... that is how I shoot and it works for me.  Others may have different methods which work for them (i.e. shooing from the hip).  You just have to shoot and see what works for you.

Gary


----------



## RacePhoto (Jul 25, 2008)

timbearden said:


> If by any means you plan to publish it, then yes ask for permission.  There was a lawsuit a while back for a company where someone's shadow was in the photo.  They actually won the suit because there shadow was in the photo.



Can you give a name or state, country, or anything about this case, I'd love to read how a shadow in a photo won a judgment. I'd think there are some very special circumstances.

Anyone able to substantiate this at all?


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

Gary- Awesome shots.

In support of Seef's statements... I have been sued... um... *tries to count in head* 3 times?  Each of those has been for absolutely bizarre trumped-up reasons that have invariably had my lawyers absolutely scratching their heads.

People CAN sue for whatever reason they like... the real problem here is you have to pay an attourney to defend you, and then sue them later if they suit was trumped up and hope to get your atty fees back.  You don't want to know how expensive defense can get.

I don't mean to scare anyone here, but it _can _happen.  I would advise walking away quickly from anyone who looks like they're going to call a lawyer.


----------



## passerby (Jul 25, 2008)

SimplyMo said:


> im looking for every photographer's oppinion possible on this topic... it's my biggest weakness as a photographer that loves photographing people, especially candid--in everyday life.
> 
> when you're photographing people, in public, do you ask for people's permission? or do you shoot sort of inconspicuously (try to just blend in with the public)? do you use a zoom lens?
> or do you just not care whether your noticed or not (unless someone says something)?


 
I don't like people take photo of me so do you, therefore I assume they don't like it either. Most of the time when we take picture of people in public or in private property there is something we gain. It is impossible to say that there is no gain it. 

The press photographer and the papparazis for example sold their photos money, fame. Loughing at other people short comings too is our gain at other people expense. Respect is due to the people whose picture are in our posession. 

This story is a good guide for what we do, and be ready to go to court when you face the wrong man / woman. Believe what you read below here instead of law guessing games:


_Former Opposition leader Mark __Latham was found to be "way out of __line" when he took a news photographers $6700 camera home and smashed it, a magistrate __found in June 2006. _

_Latham had pleased guilty to maliciously damaging News Ltd p__hotographer Ross Schultzs camera on January 19 2006. Latham approached Schultz, took __the camera and smashed it with a mallet in his shed when he got home, but not before __obtaining 50 photographs from the memory chip. _

_The Director of Public Prosecutions had __earlier dropped charges of assault and theft against Latham. No conviction was recorded but __Latham was placed on a two-year good behaviour bond._


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 25, 2008)

Seefutlung, those images are outstanding! Truly great works!

I also like and appreciate you common sense views on the topic at hand!!

Thanks!


----------



## grimm5577 (Jul 25, 2008)

The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.

Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives. 

Legally you can not publish/print/sell a photo of any recognizable person or property with out written consent from the person or owner. Underage people require getting the parents or guardians written permission. 
The only time this is not the case is for journalistic/editorial purposes.

Thats the Black and White of the law, sure there are Gray areas but that is the very simple answer. I carry a bunch of release forms with me when i shoot in public.

I take the random/candid shot, then ask them for the permission after. This way the moment isn't ruined. 



That is the law. Like it or not.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

grimm5577 said:


> The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.
> 
> Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.
> 
> ...


 
That is COMPLETELY false, at least in the USA. 
Go to www.photoattorney.com

If a person is in public they are fair game regardless of age (once again show me a law which states that minors have a greater right to privacy than adults). If you post on the internet you are publishing. The only time you need a release is if you commercially exploit the image.

Making and selling an "art" book of people and children on public sidewalks is not a commercial enterprise and is done all the time without a release(s). Using a person's image for advertising is a comercial enterprise and requires a release.

Getting a release is always better than not having one, but it is not necessary.

As to your statement of property, once again, if you shoot someone property and you are on public property it is fair game.

Gary


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 25, 2008)

grimm5577 said:


> The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.
> 
> Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.
> 
> ...


 
Bull. If it's considered art and you're not using it commercially, then you don't need a release.

If I shot a picture of Curtis Jackson sitting on a bench in the park crying his eyes out and was selling a limited run of prints for $5000 a piece, then I wouldn't need his permission.

There was a case were and Orthodox Jew Rabbi had his photo taken by a pretty well known street photog. He sued when he found out the guy was selling it. The ruling was that it was not being used commercially and being sold as art, so he was legally allowed to profit off of the other man's photo.

If that wasn't the case, a street photog that's selling his artwork would have to carry around millions of model release forms. Ever take a shot with more than 50 people in it?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 25, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> That is COMPLETELY false, at least in the USA.
> Go to www.photoattorney.com
> 
> If a person is in public they are fair game regardless of age (once again show me a law which states that minors have a greater right to privacy than adults). If you post on the internet you are publishing. The only time you need a release is if you commercially exploit the image.
> ...


 
"I never learned my AA BB CC's god god dammit dammit."


----------



## kcon (Jul 25, 2008)

just found this about the laws in the uk, didn't know it was an offence to take a picture of a bank note without the relevant permission.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Bull. If it's considered art and you're not using it commercially, then you don't need a release.
> 
> If I shot a picture of Curtis Jackson sitting on a bench in the park crying his eyes out and was selling a limited run of prints for $5000 a piece, then I wouldn't need his permission.
> 
> ...


 
Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial... and yeah, I've taken pictures with 50 people in it, and I would have had to gain a release from every one of them if I was using the likeness for commercial purposes.  I can proudly display pictures of people on my wall at my home if I like, or publish them on my website, but if it's commercial... bzzt.

This is why you sometimes see people's faces blotted out on television shows... they didn't obtain the release from whatever person was captured.


----------



## grimm5577 (Jul 25, 2008)

As I said I'm sure there are gray areas, and I'm sure people get away with it, but that doesn't mean if someone has a problem with it, they can't make a lawsuit out of it and win. 

Agree or not, Laws are laws.

Sorry I don't think that link posted is a very reputable place for info. (photoattorney) I used the below as my reference.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

If you take someones photo, with permission, and edit the photo in a mis-leading way and publish it. You can be sued... ie the in-famous oj picture...


----------



## Moglex (Jul 25, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial... and yeah, I've taken pictures with 50 people in it, and I would have had to gain a release from every one of them if I was using the likeness for commercial purposes.



That doesn't really make a lot of sense.

What is the cut-off point in terms of numbers of people shown?.

I'm sure I have seen images of packed football stadia used for commercial purposes and I'm damn sure they didn't get a release from each person there.

It would be nigh on impossible to get a release from every person even in a wide angle shot of a busy street.

There surely must be some definition of a 'crowd'.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial... and yeah, I've taken pictures with 50 people in it, and I would have had to gain a release from every one of them if I was using the likeness for commercial purposes. I can proudly display pictures of people on my wall at my home if I like, or publish them on my website, but if it's commercial... bzzt.
> 
> This is why you sometimes see people's faces blotted out on television shows... they didn't obtain the release from whatever person was captured.


 
In the United States, selling the image as 'art' is not considered a commercial use of the image.  If you need a link to a recent case ... maybe I'll dig it up.  Commercial use, as intrepreted by US law in regards to the 1st Amendment, is in the realm of advertising/marketing.

Trust me, in the case of 50 people taken at an event, if used for a commercial purpose (say Miller Beer) then Miller would obtain permission from the venue and/or event organizers to publish said image.

Gary


----------



## Moglex (Jul 25, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> Trust me, in the case of 50 people taken at an event, if used for a commercial purpose (say Miller Beer) then Miller would obtain permission from the venue and/or event organizers to publish said image.



Ahh, getiing the release from the event organiser makes more sense.

What is the mechanism whereby an individual's right not to have his/her image used for commercial purposes without permisiion devolves to the organiser of an event?


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

grimm5577 said:


> As I said I'm sure there are gray areas, and I'm sure people get away with it, but that doesn't mean if someone has a problem with it, they can't make a lawsuit out of it and win.
> 
> Agree or not, Laws are laws.
> 
> ...


 
No this is not a gray area. You can shoot any person of any age as long as the person is in a public place (some public places do have respriction but we are not here to discuss the exceptions).

Anybody can sue anybody for nearly anything ... and winning or losing cannot be speculated here as there are so many factors to be considered in any arguement. What we atre discussing here are what is permissiable to photograph under US law.

Using or altering a photo in a misleading fashion is wrong and libelous, but this is not pertain to this thread (see paragraph above).

Personally, I think www.photoattorney.com is more reputable than Krages ... but let's look at what Krage says...

Opening paragraph of Krage's "The Photographer's Right's" PDF download states:

"*The General Rule*
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets, 
sidewalks, and public parks."​


It does not say you can take photographs of whatever they want ... as long as they obtain written permission.

Krage continues:
" ... Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside​their homes. ..."

And Krage states:
"*Permissible Subjects*
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities​
transportation facilities (_e.g._, airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities law enforcement officers*"*​
Please show me where Bert P. Krage, attorney at law, supported any of your claims. Once again, based upon Krage, the attorney you referenced to support your statements and in particular to Krage's "The Photographer's Rights", all your claims are false.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

PS- By the way I do recommend that anybody who shoots in a public area to read, download and print Krage's "The Photographer's Right".

Gary


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 25, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

^5
Thanks for the link ... (I am well aware of this case).  I hope others here review your link.

Gary


----------



## grimm5577 (Jul 25, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> No this is not a gray area. You can shoot any person of any age as long as the person is in a public place (some public places do have respriction but we are not here to discuss the exceptions).



Maybe you need to re-read my post. Specifically...



grimm5577 said:


> The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.
> 
> Legally you have *every* right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.



Thanks.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

grimm5577 said:


> The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.
> 
> Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.
> 
> ...


 
Dude, here is the complete quote. In paragraph two you clearly state that "Legally" you cannot publish/print or sell a recognizable person or property without permission. That is false in the United States.

In paragraph three you state that paragraph two is the "Black and White" of the law ... again false in the United States.

While your first paragraph is accurate, the follow two paragraphs are not accurate. And your closing remark of "That is the law ... like it or not." is again, not accurate in the United States.

Gary


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

Moglex said:


> That doesn't really make a lot of sense.
> 
> What is the cut-off point in terms of numbers of people shown?.
> 
> ...


 
There is the matter of being able to distinguish the people.  If you literally take a picture of a crowd, there's no way anyone would be able to point at the 2 pixel dot and say "that's me!" and be able to sue.  The same principal is applied in a different way when you blot out people's faces on TV or other visual spaces.



Seefutlung said:


> In the United States, selling the image as 'art' is not considered a commercial use of the image. If you need a link to a recent case ... maybe I'll dig it up. Commercial use, as intrepreted by US law in regards to the 1st Amendment, is in the realm of advertising/marketing.
> 
> Trust me, in the case of 50 people taken at an event, if used for a commercial purpose (say Miller Beer) then Miller would obtain permission from the venue and/or event organizers to publish said image.
> 
> Gary


 
I'd certainly be very interested to see the case if you happen to dig it up, but I'll have to take your word for it... at least up to the point where I decide to try it myself.

I'd hate to sit in a court of law and argue that something I sold for $5000 should be considered "art" therefore absolving me.  Very subjective.  Very scary.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

manaheim said:


> There is the matter of being able to distinguish the people. If you literally take a picture of a crowd, there's no way anyone would be able to point at the 2 pixel dot and say "that's me!" and be able to sue. The same principal is applied in a different way when you blot out people's faces on TV or other visual spaces.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The link was provided in this thread by Village Idiot

Go Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Gary


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

Yeah, I did actually read that.  Very interesting and quite surprising.  Still scary. 

I've been sued a couple of times and I know the pain of lawsuits, totally trumped up or no...  You want nothing less in life to be sued.  There is very little joy in it, even when you win. (which I did resoundingly each time...)


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Yeah, I did actually read that. Very interesting and quite surprising. Still scary.
> 
> I've been sued a couple of times and I know the pain of lawsuits, totally trumped up or no... You want nothing less in life to be sued. There is very little joy in it, even when you win. (which I did resoundingly each time...)


 
Yep, I totally agree. Unless you're making a living at photography ... it is just better to walk away. Shoot and walk ... shoot and walk ... and in some cases just walk.

Gary


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 25, 2008)

I like to stay stationary and let the masses flow around me. It's kinda like duck hunting that way


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 25, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I like to stay stationary and let the masses flow around me.


 
A moving target is hard to hit.

G


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 25, 2008)

Yeah. That's what tracking is all about though right?


----------



## Moglex (Jul 25, 2008)

"I like to stay stationary and let the masses flow around me."

"A moving target is hard to hit."



Bifurcator said:


> Yeah. That's what tracking is all about though right?



Kind of tricky with the masses, though, isn't it?

They tend to move in several different directions at once. :lmao:


----------



## SimplyMo (Jul 25, 2008)

i like to blend in as much as possible, with the crowd, if someone does take a notice in me, i just look away-- play around with my camera as if im checking something--focusing--anything (hold it up--pull it down--point different ways) ..and i walk slowly away... just casually..


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> Yep, I totally agree. Unless you're making a living at photography ... it is just better to walk away. Shoot and walk ... shoot and walk ... and in some cases just walk.
> 
> Gary


 
Yeah, I like that idea, and your pictures were stunning, so I'm gonna actually try that some day.  Now I just need to figure out how to get away from the kids one day so I can actually go shoot pictures of people in the city.


----------



## ThePup (Jul 25, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial...



Selling it ISN'T Commercial use.  Commercial use is when the imaga is used to advertise or endorse a product...


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

[deleted]

^^^ I'm not going to argue with you, but I think you're being silly.


----------



## ThePup (Jul 25, 2008)

manaheim said:


> ^^^ I'm not going to argue with you, but I think you're being silly.


Not wanting an argument, but discussion is fine - Silly in what way?  I Made the statement, it is correct (For where I am, and most parts of the western world), I Don't see it as immoral, where's the sillyness?  <shrug>

[edit] To clarify, I Don't make a living from photography, and don't intend to, I don't sell photos, let alone of random people on the street - I just don't see a problem with doing so.  Would I have an issue with seeing my image for sale in an artistic, non commercial, non derogatory way?  No, I'd be pretty chuffed!  I Might try and pick up a free copy for myself, I don't think that'd be too much to ask, but I certianly wouldn't try to sue over it.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

ThePup said:


> Not wanting an argument, but discussion is fine - Silly in what way? I Made the statement, it is correct (For where I am, and most parts of the western world), I Don't see it as immoral, where's the sillyness? <shrug>
> 
> [edit] To clarify, I Don't make a living from photography, and don't intend to, I don't sell photos, let alone of random people on the street - I just don't see a problem with doing so. Would I have an issue with seeing my image for sale in an artistic, non commercial, non derogatory way? No, I'd be pretty chuffed! I Might try and pick up a free copy for myself, I don't think that'd be too much to ask, but I certianly wouldn't try to sue over it.


 
Basically I started posting definitions of what "commercial" means, and in my experience the moment you start posting definitions the thread is going to hell in a handbasket, so I decided to stop and go have an ice cream sandwhich instead.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 25, 2008)

Mmmm ice-cream sandwiches!!!  Hey, hold it in your hand and walk around in a crowd.  I wanna see if I can track it and how many bites you can take before it's no longer trackable.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Mmmm ice-cream sandwiches!!! Hey, hold it in your hand and walk around in a crowd. I wanna see if I can track it and how many bites you can take before it's no longer trackable.


 
:lmao:


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 25, 2008)

I am very intrigued by this subject...which is why I try to read through the virtually same thread that continually pops up about twice a month.

I don't offer much input on the subject because I don't have much knowledge on the subject. I want to learn.

But it seems like people are quick to give their input here and then claim it as law, or absolutely correct when I think a lot of it is really just a lot of hearsay and misinformation.

From what I have read here and checking out other links to photographers' rights and that sort of thing, I really think Gary (Seefutlung) has the most accurate information here. He has made a living doing exactly that, and he's got the shots from way back to back it up. I would think he knows a thing or two about the subject.

I just wish that if people don't truly know, that they wouldn't put their opinion out there on the web and state it as absolute fact. It is just adding to the propagation of false information that spreads throughout the web and just adds to the confusion, one of the major drawbacks of the internet.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 26, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I am very intrigued by this subject...which is why I try to read through the virtually same thread that continually pops up about twice a month.
> 
> I don't offer much input on the subject because I don't have much knowledge on the subject. I want to learn.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Marcus.  The problem is that many people truly think that their information is accurate.  Most inaccurate advice is well intended and not delivered with malice.  Things get ugly when people refuse to accept facts which are contary to their opinions.  If we all stay open minded and argue facts not emotions ... we, as a community, can openly discuss topics with difference of opinions and walk away with more knowledge then when we started and equally important ... walk away as a respected member of this community.

Gary

PS-  I can't even remember how many times I've been wrong ... especially in technical discussions ...
G


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jul 26, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> PS-  I can't even remember how many times I've been wrong ... especially in technical discussions ...
> G



Sounds like me... ;]


----------



## ThePup (Jul 26, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> It is just adding to the propagation of false information that spreads throughout the web and just adds to the confusion, one of the major drawbacks of the internet.



OK, For those of us in Austalia, this will eliminate any confusion.  Written by a qualified solicitor.

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

To those elsewhere in the world, there's links towards the bottom with references for other countries.


----------



## gundy74 (Jul 27, 2008)

i'll stay out of the legal debate ince ive never sold one of my photos.

when traveling, i sometimes photograph the local in public as far as asking permission, i prefer candid shooting so approaching the subject first would result in a posed shot. long telephotos intimidate people so i use a 50mm or 18-55mm. ive never been attacked or reprimanded, but ive gotten some weird looks when caught.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Jul 30, 2008)

Great thread. very informative... I always have trouble taking candid shots with professional telephoto canon lenses for obvious reasons. that white paint only seems to be able to capture candid undomesticated animals. Even my dog notices flashy L and becomes a bit silly in front of it, but dont we all? I somes wish telephoto L's werent so flashy.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 30, 2008)

There used to  be right-angle attachments you could get. I suppose they're still around. It's an optical grade mirror mounted in a short tube at a forty five degree angle with a pice of dummy glass or lens cap on front. It screws onto the filter threads and allows you to take candid shots of people to the right or left of you.  Works great!


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 30, 2008)

Ah, here we go: 

http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_main/bow-vl143.html
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Voyeur-Right-Angle-Digital/dp/B000VX5FHO/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t

With a flip out LCD or a swivelable EVF you can kinda do this anyway though.  I do it on occasion with mine.


----------



## rumaweigh (Aug 7, 2008)

Encouraged by this thread, I decided to photograph travelers at a bus station.  I set up a tripod and flash, took some shots of people standing in line (who were curious and I obliged their curiosity with a chat).  This lasted about 5 minutes when a bus station employee told me it was not allowed on security grounds.  I tried the "public place" response.  He said a bus station was like an airport, terrorism etc you know, public place or not.
   What I found really bizarre, was the the bus station was posted all over with signs announcing that everyone at the station would be continuously phtotographed for security reasons!


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 7, 2008)

Well, let's see the shots you did get...


----------

