# First Try at Public Candids



## JEazy (Jun 11, 2006)

There was a little even held at a gazebo down by our lake. Are these any good?


----------



## magicmonkey (Jun 11, 2006)

I like them all apart from #3 and #5. it's the facial expresion that I dislike in #3 and in #5 the skin looks overblown which I find a bit distrcting. I'm liking #4 very much though, great comp.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 11, 2006)

So are these strangers to you JEazy?
For you did not take "street photos", you took their portraits that you are now publishing. Portraits ... which is different from "street", I think. 
And I am about convinced you would best obtain a release from these people before they find themselves in an internet forum one day... This is the kind of people photography that I am totally unsure as to how to deal with it, for their identities can well be established, their faces are clearly to be seen, and at least in my country there is a law against publishing this kind of photos of people unless they have given you permission.
(Mind I took over 100 photos of people yesterday, all candids, but I guess you will NEVER EVER get to see them - though some are quite ok).

I should add that I find these very good! Particularly the elderly people on the bench, the elderly lady who gives you her nice smile, the two younger women in conversation and that man's pic! They are really GOOD.)


----------



## machine (Jun 11, 2006)

never really thoguht of it that way , but im pretty sure in the USA/canada its ok as far as the law is concerned


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 11, 2006)

I know that the law is more lenient in the USA and Canada.
It is particularly strict in my country.
You may TAKE photos of people in public places all right. No one can make you NOT take the pics. But you may not SHOW them. Actually, if we were EXTREMELY strict about a "Persons Right To Their Own Image", I would not even be allowed to show my photos of people around among family and friends. For that would already make them "public". No one really obeys here! 
But to put them online is another matter... It is a PITY, for I'd LOVE to show you more of my people pics, but apart from the bit of "street" that I took in New York back in April, I have never dared to show you pics of people, unless I got their release (like for the ballet pics) or they are family and I got their unspoken release.


----------



## JEazy (Jun 11, 2006)

LaFoto said:
			
		

> So are these strangers to you JEazy?
> For you did not take "street photos", you took their portraits that you are now publishing. Portraits ... which is different from "street", I think.
> And I am about convinced you would best obtain a release from these people before they find themselves in an internet forum one day... This is the kind of people photography that I am totally unsure as to how to deal with it, for their identities can well be established, their faces are clearly to be seen, and at least in my country there is a law against publishing this kind of photos of people unless they have given you permission.
> (Mind I took over 100 photos of people yesterday, all candids, but I guess you will NEVER EVER get to see them - though some are quite ok).
> ...



since it was on public property and it was a public event i have the right to take and publish photos of whatever i wanted from that event. i've read a few Associated Press books...


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 11, 2006)

My intention has never been to critique your publishing these ... it is an open question to me, something I have been confused about forever! I believe you have read the AP books. No doubt. And I have read our German Law texts. 
And I know that the law is stricter in Germany.
It is more lenient in the States.
I have learned as much here on TPF.


----------



## tehbuffalo (Jun 11, 2006)

You can either love or hate freedom of press (I think thats what this falls under) 

Jake


----------



## lil dvl (Jun 12, 2006)

strict laws here in australia on this subject aswell... but anyway good pics!


----------



## magicmonkey (Jun 12, 2006)

I think the US and the UK allow you to do a lot of things you wouldn't be allowed to do in other countries. We're nations that expect to be caught on camera as CCTV etc. is everywhere, I read recently that the UK has more surveilance cameras per mile than any other country. It's no wonder we're a bit more lax about who publishes our images when we live in a culture that has come to treat it as the norm....

rant over!!


----------



## markc (Jun 12, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> since it was on public property and it was a public event i have the right to take and publish photos of whatever i wanted from that event. i've read a few Associated Press books...


I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. The first image relates to a public event, so that should be fine as a news item, but the rest have nothing to do with the event, even if they might have been taken in the vicinity. Just because a person is out in public doesn't make it a free-for-all, and the specifics will vary from state to state. I doubt if you will get hassled much for posting them on a forum like this, but if you used them in any kind of promotional way, they'd probably have a case.

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html


----------



## markc (Jun 12, 2006)

As for the photos, I like several of them. The bright sun hurts a few, and several have too much empy space for me, but I like the subject in #4 and the last one, and probably #2. I'd just crop them differently.


----------



## JEazy (Jun 12, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. The first image relates to a public event, so that should be fine as a news item, but the rest have nothing to do with the event, even if they might have been taken in the vicinity. Just because a person is out in public doesn't make it a free-for-all, and the specifics will vary from state to state. I doubt if you will get hassled much for posting them on a forum like this, but if you used them in any kind of promotional way, they'd probably have a case.
> 
> http://www.publaw.com/photo.html



nah i can shoot and publish whoever i want if it's public. sorry for being an ass, but it's true.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 12, 2006)

Well, if you were in Germany, that would NOT be true.
A person has a right to their own image, and you may TAKE as many photos of anyone outdoors or in public spaces as you want to - but you must NOT necessarily also have the right to PUBLISH them. There IS a difference. 
Sorry to be an ass, too.


----------



## JEazy (Jun 12, 2006)

Well I live in America, and yes, Germany is *much* stricter than America.


----------



## markc (Jun 12, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> nah i can shoot and publish whoever i want if it's public. sorry for being an ass, but it's true.


If you are going to make money off the image, you better get a release, public or not. I'm only pressing this because I don't want other people to get the wrong idea. Everyone should learn what their local laws are, and not from people on a photo forum.


----------



## JEazy (Jun 12, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> If you are going to make money off the image, you better get a release, public or not. I'm only pressing this because I don't want other people to get the wrong idea. Everyone should learn what their local laws are, and not from people on a photo forum.



i'm not trying to make money off these images, i'm just posting them for critiques...on a photo forum.


----------



## markc (Jun 12, 2006)

JEazy said:
			
		

> i'm not trying to make money off these images, i'm just posting them for critiques...on a photo forum.


Yup. Sorry if there was confusion. I already agreed that you shouldn't have a problem with that. Your response to that and general use of "publish" made me think that you felt you could publish them any way you wanted. There are important distinctions to keep in mind. Sorry that this has sidetracked your thread so much.


----------



## JEazy (Jun 12, 2006)

eh it doesn't matter, i'm not to happy with these anyways...


----------

