# Discuss legality of taking pictures of strangers



## frankiscool (Oct 11, 2004)

I've often wondered if it's legal to take pictures of someone in public and, say, put it here for critique.

Discuss.


----------



## Karalee (Oct 11, 2004)

As far as I know, as long as you dont use it for commercial use and make a profit, and you can see them from public property  its legal.


----------



## JPPLAY (Oct 11, 2004)

Karalee said:
			
		

> As far as I know, as long as you dont use it for commercial use and make a profit, and you can see them from public property  its legal.



If you shoot in a public place of anything you should be able to publish it for profit. You don't need premission to take a picture of someone walking by then to publish it.


----------



## LizM (Oct 12, 2004)

JPPLAY said:
			
		

> If you shoot in a public place of anything you should be able to publish it for profit. You don't need premission to take a picture of someone walking by then to publish it.



Not even close I'm afraid.  The only time you don't need permission is if the person is not recognizable OR if it falls under "fair use" rules for news media.  Lots of folks never push the issue with "street photography" but it can get you in deep legal doo doo.

  Ahh, the U.S.A. - land of beaurocracy. (I can NEVER seem to spell that right)


----------



## voodoocat (Oct 12, 2004)

LizM said:
			
		

> JPPLAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You only need a model release when you are going to use the image commercially.  What are they going to sue you for if you're not making any money off of it?


----------



## walter23 (Oct 12, 2004)

Today I got yelled at by both a bank manager and a mall security guard (got a hopefully awesome photo of the latter) for taking pictures of a post-robbery situation (cops walking around the bank, customers and tellers filling out reports, police cars parked on the sidewalk, etc).  The bank manager came out and asked me why I was taking pictures, and I said "because its nice to see the bank getting robbed for once instead of the other way around" (i'm really bitter about service charges and monthly fees).  The security guard said "you can't take pictures in the mall" so I got a shot of her face with a blurry hand sticking out (off to the side, had to duck and shoot to get her face out from behind her hand).  I think I pushed it about as far as it could go without risking a bit of a hassle.  This of course has nothing really to do with the legality of normal public photos of people, but I couldn't resist sharing the small bit of excitment I got on the way to school today.  And I hope that security guard photo turns out as awesome as it looked through the viewfinder.


----------



## walter23 (Oct 12, 2004)

frankiscool said:
			
		

> I've often wondered if it's legal to take pictures of someone in public and, say, put it here for critique.
> 
> Discuss.



One guy got arrested recently for taking photos of people (in the mall) for his own personal use.

I don't think it was the photography that got him in trouble, but rather the fact that his camera was hidden and his subjects were the bottom sides of random girls who were wearing skirts that day.


----------



## mentos_007 (Oct 13, 2004)

in my country it is said that if a person fits less tha 13 % of the whole photo you can publish it without permission/agreement/knowledge of the person photographed. and you can publish it when there is a crowd but noone here specified WHAT the crowd is  some claim that three is a crowd


----------



## The People's Knee (Oct 13, 2004)

This is why it's good to have a nice long-range lense


----------



## santino (Oct 13, 2004)

"because its nice to see the bank getting robbed for once instead of the other way around" :thumbsup: :LOL:
great sentence!


----------



## androo (Oct 13, 2004)

this is interesting cos what if you take a candid pic but just for personal but at some later date you want to use it or part of it commercially? do you have to run up to everyone after they have stepped into a picture or whatever and make sure its ok with them? 
personally i have just been carrying on unaware but then i don't really use candid portraits/people pics commercially


----------



## JonMikal (Oct 13, 2004)

I'm certain you would have to have their permission if used commercially.  I generally ask for permission unless the angle is from behind or the subject is unrecognizable.  It's saves for hassels later on.


----------



## GerryDavid (Oct 14, 2004)

I think its good to have a permision form signed if you can, even if its legal not to, just to have yourself covered.  In public, I dont think you need one if you cant tell who it is, like if its a from the behind shot.

One question ive been wondering lately is on the model and property release forms, there is a space for a witness signature, but it doestn ask for the witness location information.  Can you, as the photographer sign the witness space yourself, or does there have to be a 3rd person involved?  It would make it easier if the photographer could witness his own form but it some how doesnt seem like it would hold up in the court.



			
				walter23 said:
			
		

> I said "because its nice to see the bank getting robbed for once instead of the other way around" (i'm really bitter about service charges and monthly fees).



Hehe, I understand.  My bank just raised the limit from $1000 to $1500 cdn before you dont get charged bank fee's, and they like to charge you for about anything.

I was thinking of switching banks since my bank raised the limit, and I was paying like $6 or so for bank fee's *I know its not much but it adds up* and I was surprised by all the things they charge you for.

I dont remember the exact figures, but it goes something like this.  If you dont use your bank account for a year *you give them money for a year and you dont take it back* they charge you an inactive fee of $10 or something like that.  AFter something like 5 years they charge $30 for inactivity.  You give them your money, and let them use it, and they bill you for it, go figure.

Each month I get like 4 or 5 cents interest and they now charge me $3 or so minimum if I only withdrawl money once a month.

I believe the banks use to be free to go up to the teller and do your banking.  Now to use a human teller, they charge you more than they charge if you use an atm.  They charge you for using an atm that doesnt cost them very much money to operate.

Im thinking if everyone withdrawls all thier money out of the banks, it will make them think twice about the fee's they charge, but that wont happen, and I dont want to see what it would do to the system if people did, hehe.


----------



## LizM (Oct 15, 2004)

And I thought USA banks were bad!


----------



## nomav6 (Oct 17, 2004)

GerryDavid said:
			
		

> One question ive been wondering lately is on the model and property release forms


where could you get one of these forms? can you find them on the net and print them out or do you need a lawyer to write one up for you?
Thanks


----------



## markc (Oct 17, 2004)

I said this in another thread, but I really wouldn't take any answers about law as law from an Internet message board. This is nothing against any of us here, but we aren't lawyers, and the laws vary so greaty not only from country to country, but they can from state to state (in the USA). Talk to an experienced local photographer who is willing to spend some time with you (a lawyer would be best, but you might have to pay). Make sure it's someone who knows what they are doing. If you get sued for copyright infingement or invasion of privacy, you could end up paying big bucks.

Malls and banks are private property, so the rules are usually very different there than when you are on the street, where they are different than when you are attending a newsworthy event, but it really depends on where you are and how you use the photograph. The differences may be subtle at times, but can be important. Too make matters more complicated, the US government is coming down on what was (and I thought legally still is) legitimate photography of public places, like bridges and such.


----------



## logel (Oct 20, 2004)

another side answer: here in China you feel like there´s no legislation on anything at all, but a friend of mine was some days ago taking pictures on the street (in Kunming) and a cop came to him and said that foreigners need a permit to do photographs _anywhere_... Usually there should not be any problem, that time first of october was approaching, and they were "getting tougher", in a broad sense; i guess here it just depends on the mood on the official in charge, as always happens...


----------



## cactus waltz (Oct 20, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> I said this in another thread, but I really wouldn't take any answers about law as law from an Internet message board. This is nothing against any of us here, but we aren't lawyers, and the laws vary so greaty not only from country to country, but they can from state to state (in the USA). Talk to an experienced local photographer who is willing to spend some time with you (a lawyer would be best, but you might have to pay). Make sure it's someone who knows what they are doing. If you get sued for copyright infingement or invasion of privacy, you could end up paying big bucks.




I happen to be a law student. Funnily enough, I must agree with you - laws in immaterial rights vary enough to cause confusion between borders for there to be one strict definition. However, you can stay assured that pretty much wherever you'll go, you will need permission from a portrayed person if you're going to use the portrait for financial purposes, or for web publishing. I would keep that in mind as a 
*rule of thumb, not a guarantee. Check out your local regulations if you are serious about putting out your photos to the public, including the Internet*.

Domo arigato.


----------



## jadin (Oct 20, 2004)

Crikey Gerry, go find a credit union. _Usually_ much better.

I remember one time my bank charged me for insufficent funds. But the thing is they didn't allow the charge to go through. Meaning I never actually went below zero balance. So they shouldn't be able to charge for insufficent funds. Makes you want to smack somebody.


----------



## GerryDavid (Oct 20, 2004)

Well I know how paypal works now.  Before I thought my credit card was the default source of money after the paypal ballance, but it seems paypal makes the bank account be the default source no matter what.  Now that I know that, it wont happen again.  Paypal is just nicer to use since people trust it and you can send the people the merchandise same day as the end of the auction if they pay fast enough.

Different banks let you do different things.  I can get overdraft protection so if I go over, I get charged interest, which is like 200 times higher than the interest they pay me, go figure.  :0)


----------



## mad_malteaser (Oct 21, 2004)

This thread got me thinking about UK Laws and where we stand taking photo's and using them commercially over here.

I found this link for any Brits who might be interested...

http://www.ephotozine.com/freelance/fullstory.cfm?freelanceid=19


----------

