# Rules on street photography



## revenater (Sep 4, 2012)

what is the rule or law when it come to shooting shots on city streets? There is a festival in my home town this weekend and I am wanting to take some shots but I was unsure about photographing strangers without permission. The festival is on the city streets and city square am I safe to photograph people?


----------



## skieur (Sep 4, 2012)

You are allowed to legally take photos of anyone in a public place without permission.

skieur


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

skieur said:
			
		

> You are allowed to legally take photos of anyone in a public place without permission.
> 
> skieur



Is this a worldwide rule?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 4, 2012)

_you need to get model releases from ever person you photograph whether they are the focal point or just in the background..._


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:
			
		

> you need to get model releases from ever person you photograph whether they are the focal point or just in the background...



Cant you just get a blanket release that one person would sign on everyones behalf


----------



## revenater (Sep 4, 2012)

even if they are in a parade, I need a release?


----------



## TransportJockey (Sep 4, 2012)

No you do not. People in a public place generally are thought to not havw any reasonable expectation of privacy 

Sent from my left big toe


----------



## zombiemann (Sep 4, 2012)

Laws vary from state to state, city to city.  What is true for me is not 100% sure to be true for you.  I am not a lawyer, nor should anything I post be construed as "legal advice"

"Generally" speaking if you can see it from public property it is fair game.  For specifics relating to your locale I would recommend a consultation with an attorney, if you are truly concerned with the legality involved.

*hint, but still not legal advice*  check out google streetview, do you really think they have a release on file for all of the people you can see?  They don't have my signature but I can be seen


----------



## revenater (Sep 4, 2012)

Zombiemann,
thank you


----------



## KmH (Sep 4, 2012)

Alas many don't know what 'public property' is, but the key is the concept that people out in public, like a home town festival can have no expectation of privacy making them fair game for photographers taking photos of them.

However, if those photos are going to be used for commercial purposes by 3rd parties, it's a good idea to have releases on file from the people in the photos.
That is based on the legal definition of commercial use, and does not include selling prints of the photos, which is an editorial use of the photos.


----------



## ewick (Sep 4, 2012)

From what I heard and experianced it is pretty much fair game if they are in public but it is polite to ask if they are with in range of asking. They are most likely going to ask you who you shoot for and if you don't shoot for anybody it might get akward for you. if you are shooting with a big zoom lens the majority of the time they wont even know. its a case by case judgement call. good luck.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

TransportJockey said:


> No you do not. People in a public place generally are thought to not havw any reasonable expectation of privacy





KmH said:


> That is based on the legal definition of commercial use, and does not include selling prints of the photos, which is an editorial use of the photos.



While in public I don't have the right to privacy, I do have a right to control how my image and likeness will be used. It's one thing to say: Unpopular was at this parade drinking a coke. It's another thing to use my image to sell a product that, or in a way that, I may not endorse: Be a dirty hippy: Drink Coke!


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

I haven't read through the replies before me, but even in my country, where rules are a bit stricter than in the States, you could photograph all you liked when there's a festival or circus or any kind of public event coming to town/taking place. Whoever goes there just runs the "risk" of ending in someone else's photos and cannot do a thing against it, not even against those photos being published (which is where the stricter German regulations come into play, for actually - while you may PHOTOGRAPH anyone anywhere out in public - you must not publish in any manner your people photos [like on TPF, e.g.]). Photos taken at public events MAY be published, too. 
Like I said: from what I gathered here on TPF, American regulations are less strict. You must not make MONEY with people photos that you took without concession over there, I think. But you may happily publish them (like here on TPF, e.g.).


----------



## gsgary (Sep 5, 2012)

Only rule for street photography is get in close, but there are no rules look up Bruce Gilden on youtube or Joel Meyerowicz


----------



## TCampbell (Sep 5, 2012)

Whether or not you need a release depends on what you plan to do with the photo after you take it.  If these photos are just for your personal use (and that includes sharing them with friends, posting them online, etc.) then you don't need a release.  

If you plan to SELL the photos (e.g. you want to sell them in a gallery, or you want to post them on a stock-photo site for someone to buy who may, in turn, use them in an advertisement, etc.) THAT'S when you get to the point where a release may be necessary.

Even then... the laws can vary and it often depends on who you photographed, whether they are "recognizable" and ultimately even "why" the photo is interesting (is the photo of the person in the park playing frisbee with their dog interesting because the action of playing frisbee in the park made the photograph interesting... or is it interesting because it was a famous notable person who happened to be playing frisbee with their dog?)  If the photo would have been as interesting regardless of who was in it, then in many jurisdictions you still may not need a release even if you plan to use the image to engage in some form of commerce.  

The reality is, however, that even if the law is on your side (you're legally entitled to use the image the way you intended to use it without obtaining a release) that doesn't necessarily mean the other party knows the law.  They may still hound you, try to extract payment from you (sue you in court) for which you'd then need to hire an attorney and basically you end up paying money to defend yourself even though you didn't break any laws.  That's why some photographers (and most all stock photo sites) want releases whether they are legally required to have them or not.

But if you're not going to engage in any form of commerce... click away!

I was at an ice sculpting event a couple of years ago and, out in the area of the park where the ice-sculpting was taking place, they had signs posted everywhere that indicating that you were entering an area where many photographers were working and by entering that area you were agreeing to allow any photos in which you may appear to be used for commercial purposes.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 5, 2012)

revenater said:


> what is the rule or law when it come to shooting shots on city streets? There is a festival in my home town this weekend and I am wanting to take some shots but I was unsure about photographing strangers without permission. The festival is on the city streets and city square am I safe to photograph people?



If a cop tells you to stop then stop. Same goes if someone says stop or they will kick your ass. Other then that your pretty much good when in public. Try to look friendly and smile. Dont be sneaky looking. Just be honest about what you are doing and you wont creep people out.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 5, 2012)

zombiemann said:
			
		

> ..... check out google streetview, do you really think they have a release on file for all of the people you can see?  They don't have my signature but I can be seen



Oh, do tell. Address & city.... Or GPS coordinates.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> Whether or not you need a release depends on what you plan to do with the photo after you take it.  If these photos are just for your personal use (and that includes sharing them with friends, posting them online, etc.) then you don't need a release.
> 
> If you plan to SELL the photos (e.g.* you want to sell them in a gallery,* or you want to post them on a stock-photo site for someone to buy who may, in turn, use them in an advertisement, etc.) THAT'S when you get to the point where a release may be necessary.



Selling in a gallery is not 'commercial' use and doesn't require a model release.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 5, 2012)

Suffice it to say the OPs question is far too ambiguous and laws vary from region to region. So there is no one, single answer.


----------



## KmH (Sep 5, 2012)

unpopular said:


> TransportJockey said:
> 
> 
> > No you do not. People in a public place generally are thought to not havw any reasonable expectation of privacy
> ...


Yeper!

Check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia


----------



## KmH (Sep 5, 2012)

It's even more complex, because you only need model releases for 'recognizable' people.

Be aware that unique clothing, tattoos, scars, or other features can make a person recognizable even if their face cannot be seen. And, it's usually the person in the photo that decides if they are recognizable or not, though the final decision is often made in court.


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the US, Canada, England, Australia and many other western countries, yes.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> _you need to get model releases from ever person you photograph whether they are the focal point or just in the background..._



Wow, On top of everything else, you don't know the law either in the US.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not necessary, unless you are using the photo for advertising purposes.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> It's even more complex, because you only need model releases for 'recognizable' people.
> 
> Be aware that unique clothing, tattoos, scars, or other features can make a person recognizable even if their face cannot be seen. And, it's usually the person in the photo that decides if they are recognizable or not, though the final decision is often made in court.



You may or MAY NOT need model releases but that depends on the USE of the photo, but you can still take the shot irregardless.  The "recognizable" people issue is only a concern if you take a shot of some prominent citizen in front of a porn store for example.  Not very likely for most street shooters.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> I haven't read through the replies before me, but even in my country, where rules are a bit stricter than in the States, you could photograph all you liked when there's a festival or circus or any kind of public event coming to town/taking place. Whoever goes there just runs the "risk" of ending in someone else's photos and cannot do a thing against it, not even against those photos being published (which is where the stricter German regulations come into play, for actually - while you may PHOTOGRAPH anyone anywhere out in public - you must not publish in any manner your people photos [like on TPF, e.g.]). Photos taken at public events MAY be published, too.
> Like I said: from what I gathered here on TPF, American regulations are less strict. You must not make MONEY with people photos that you took without concession over there, I think. But you may happily publish them (like here on TPF, e.g.).



In North America, you can take and publish photos in a public place without any permission legally.  For advertising purposes however, a model release is necessary,...as in selling a product.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> Whether or not you need a release depends on what you plan to do with the photo after you take it. If these photos are just for your personal use (and that includes sharing them with friends, posting them online, etc.) then you don't need a release.
> 
> If you plan to SELL the photos (e.g. you want to sell them in a gallery, or you want to post them on a stock-photo site for someone to buy who may, in turn, use them in an advertisement, etc.) THAT'S when you get to the point where a release may be necessary.
> .



NO, there was a case in New York, where SALE to a gallery did NOT require a model release or the permission of the subject in a large lawsuit.  Artistic/gallery use for payment or not is permitted of a shot taken in a public place without permission.

skieur


----------



## 3Ddeath (Sep 5, 2012)

I find i'm bound by my own ethical reasons a lot more than the law, within the rules of the law in my area i can take a photo of any person in public which includes police, children ect and they aren't legally allowed to ask me to remove it as the photo is my property after its taken.

Ethical I stay away from children street photography and I have no problem taking photos of regular people on the street, but if I get any hint that someone doesn't want a photo or asks for it to be deleted I will do that kindly, but if they are rude enough I might just take a stand against it.

I find it takes a bit of street photography experience to learn the types of people that might be a bad idea to photograph, i'm still learning, I don't mind a little bit of confrontation from people and I feel it acts as a critique of your behavior on the street.

And that goes for how you'd want to be treated on the street, if you don't want your photo taken...


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

skewer, meet my friend here, his name is multi-quote.


----------



## skieur (Sep 5, 2012)

3Ddeath said:


> I find i'm bound by my own ethical reasons a lot more than the law, within the rules of the law in my area i can take a photo of any person in public which includes police, children ect and they aren't legally allowed to ask me to remove it as the photo is my property after its taken.
> 
> Ethical I stay away from children street photography and I have no problem taking photos of regular people on the street, but if I get any hint that someone doesn't want a photo or asks for it to be deleted I will do that kindly, but if they are rude enough I might just take a stand against it.
> 
> ...



Don't forget that there are multiple methods for doing street photography and I have probably used them all.  

1.  Pick an event or a tourist destination where everyone has cameras out.  No one will even notice you.

2.  Pick a location, use telephoto.

3. Shoot from the waist with live view.

4. Use a wide angle prime for minimum distortion and shoot close in with a quiet shutter/mirrorless camera.

5. Shoot from the shade into a sunlit area. (No one will notice.)

6. Preset your camera, shoot and move on.

7. Face detection and auto subject tracking are useful camera features for razor sharp autofocus and exposure.

skieur


----------



## revenater (Sep 5, 2012)

Thank you all for your response. I would not being using them for commercial use. I am only wanting the practice. the most they would get used for would be my wall or a contest. my home town is 6 hours away and so alot of it would be memories also. Everyone was very helpful. Thank you again. Hopefully I will get some great ones to show off.


----------



## deeky (Sep 6, 2012)

Case study for the sake of discussion - the popparazzi are EVERYWHERE.  They take pictures/video to sell.  Pretty sure they don't ever get releases from the stars/wannabe's that they shoot.  If the subjects do sign a release, they are crazy for willingly allowing that to be put out there.  But it's definitely not an advertisement for any product (except maybe indirectly for AA, Narcanon, etc.)  If there was grounds for prevention of the sale of those photos/videos, pretty sure some of Hollywood would have stood on it by now.


----------



## brett_93_ex (Sep 6, 2012)

I take a lot of candid pictures of people all the time. I printed out generic business cards to give out if anyone asked about it, and always send them the pics if they want. Being still new to photography, I will always send pics if they request it. I have done a few family portraits at the beach or mountains on the fly this way. Still don't consider myself good enough to accept money though.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 6, 2012)

I prefer it when people ask me to take their picture. I had this father and son pair of thugs holler at me last fathers day, we chatted a bit and drank a "well before lunch" beer. Then totally unexpected they asked if I could take their photo. I wasn't really prepared, all I had was my popup flash and a manual focus Tessar. But I think it turned out OK, not anything award winning:







A few days later I had it printed, put it in a cheap frame and with some cultural awkwardness figuring out what unit they were in (nobody seemed to have ever seen the guy), had it delivered by a neighbor to the father ("uhm. well. if you do see this guy around, can you give him this?"). 

A few weeks later I ran into the kid. He seemed so grateful to have the picture, it really made my day


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 10, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> revenater said:
> 
> 
> > what is the rule or law when it come to shooting shots on city streets? There is a festival in my home town this weekend and I am wanting to take some shots but I was unsure about photographing strangers without permission. The festival is on the city streets and city square am I safe to photograph people?
> ...



If a cop tells you to stop, they could just be ignorant of the law and if someone threatens to kick your ass for legally taking a photo of them in public, it could be a good opportunity to sue the crap out of them if they actually do. There are many, many, many stories of polices, security guards, and other people acting in official capacities telling people that are legally photographing in public that they need to stop because they're doing something illegal. A lot of law enforcement and private security are just as ignorant of the laws regarding photographing things in public as there appear to be in this thread.

Just because a cop tells you to do something doesn't mean that you have to do it. Telling someone to stop taking photos of another person while both are in public space is just as bad as a cop telling to you punch someone walking by in the face and then threatening to arrest you if you don't comply. The first instance weakens your rights while the second has you assaulting someone. My point with the hyperbole? An officer is not always right.

Should you question the officer? It depends, are you the type of person that will stand up and confront someone that is telling you what you're doing is wrong when you know it's right? Can you afford to spend the night in jail and defend yourself in court? 

There's even cases of cops in certain states using wire tapping laws to arrest citizens for filming them doing their duty in public. Most of these have been thrown out and I've even seen one where the DA told the police department to stop harassing people for taking photos and filming them in public. The chief in that situation said that his officers would continue on their present course of violating the people's rights. And as much as people want to complain about the litigous society we live in, at some point there's only one way to make the people that are in authority and that are supposed to be protecting our rights to listen. Unfortunately in some places it has gone from serve and protect to generate revenue and harass.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 10, 2012)

deeky said:


> Case study for the sake of discussion - the popparazzi are EVERYWHERE.  They take pictures/video to sell.  Pretty sure they don't ever get releases from the stars/wannabe's that they shoot.  If the subjects do sign a release, they are crazy for willingly allowing that to be put out there.  But it's definitely not an advertisement for any product (except maybe indirectly for AA, Narcanon, etc.)  If there was grounds for prevention of the sale of those photos/videos, pretty sure some of Hollywood would have stood on it by now.



That's because the publications they shoot for are using the photos for editorial purposes.


----------



## deeky (Sep 10, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> deeky said:
> 
> 
> > Case study for the sake of discussion - the popparazzi are EVERYWHERE.  They take pictures/video to sell.  Pretty sure they don't ever get releases from the stars/wannabe's that they shoot.  If the subjects do sign a release, they are crazy for willingly allowing that to be put out there.  But it's definitely not an advertisement for any product (except maybe indirectly for AA, Narcanon, etc.)  If there was grounds for prevention of the sale of those photos/videos, pretty sure some of Hollywood would have stood on it by now.
> ...



Fair enough.  Could you argue that your art street photography is simply editorial comment on society?  After all, most photography is an attempt to make some sort of opinion statement.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 11, 2012)

deeky said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > deeky said:
> ...



Go back to the first page and find the link to the Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia Wikipedia page.

A judge ruled there is a difference in a photograph being sold commercially vs. being sold as art. In fact, go research street photography a bit more. There's a ton of links out there that can easily be found via Google, with some of them dealing with actual court cases and rulings.


----------



## tylerzachary412 (Sep 12, 2012)

Take pictures of what you like. Don't just run around like a reporter with microphone when Usain Bolt beated World record in Olympic games. Just shoot what you see has a value and keep doing what you like. This rule seems to be acceptable to me. Don't bother people with what you're doing


----------



## richardmicah01 (Sep 13, 2012)

You can take shots anywhere, without any permission.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 13, 2012)

richardmicah01 said:


> You can take shots anywhere, without any permission.



Excellent advice to be arrested by. Try taking photos on a military installation or on government property like the pentagon. In DC, you're allowed to take photos on the metro since it's public, but not on the pentagon city stop because it's goverment land and they set the rules. You're _can_ take photos in private venues, but if the owner doesn't give you consent, they can have you removed if you don't stop. Taking photos in most concert venues is usually not allowed and is posted on tickets and upfront. They can choose not to even let you in if you have a camera.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 13, 2012)

Rules?

Make sure your on public property and have fun.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 13, 2012)

And don't put a single FOOT on federal property.

Learned that one the hard way.


----------



## deeky (Sep 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And don't put a single FOOT on federal property.
> 
> Learned that one the hard way.



I took my camera down to the federal courthouse on a Saturday evening with some great light one day in Minneapolis.  It's got some pretty cool modern architecture for a courthouse.  I didn't even think about it and just started snapping away at the outside of the building.  It wasn't long at all and I had a security gaurd headed my way.  I explained I was just an amature hack that liked the building, apologized, assured him I would stop, and even offered to show him the pics I had already taken.  He was really nice about it.  He explained he was required to ask, was fine with what I was doing, and even assured me I could continue shooting the outside of the building.  He was more concerned with the teenagers that were skateboarding by the fountain than he was by me.  

Sounds like I got lucky.  Never thought about the issues of federal property.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 13, 2012)

For me, it was much closer to 9/11. I was taking some photos of a bank who was a client of the ad agency I was working for. All was fine, until I stepped up onto the federal court house's steps to get a better vantage point. The guard swooped in, brought me inside for questioning, took my ID, who I was and who I was working for. 

After an hour and a half, I was let go.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For me, it was much closer to 9/11. I was taking some photos of a bank who was a client of the ad agency I was working for. All was fine, until I stepped up onto the federal court house's steps to get a better vantage point. The guard swooped in, brought me inside for questioning, took my ID, who I was and who I was working for.
> 
> After an hour and a half, I was let go.



no body cavity search for explosives?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 13, 2012)

No. They even let me keep my film.

Awful nice of them.


----------



## skieur (Sep 13, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> richardmicah01 said:
> 
> 
> > You can take shots anywhere, without any permission.
> ...



Actually, legally, you can take photos of US government installations and property that are NOT on the top secret list, and there are not many locations on that list.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Rules?
> 
> Make sure your on public property and have fun.



You don't have to be on public property.  Shots taken on private property even when trespassing, belong to the photographer.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For me, it was much closer to 9/11. I was taking some photos of a bank who was a client of the ad agency I was working for. All was fine, until I stepped up onto the federal court house's steps to get a better vantage point. The guard swooped in, brought me inside for questioning, took my ID, who I was and who I was working for.
> 
> After an hour and a half, I was let go.



What the guard did was illegal in the US, but I bet you were intimidated and did NOT sue or file a police report to lay charges.  Photographers cannot stop illegal harassment unless they take action.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Sep 13, 2012)

Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.

Simply because the federal courthouse is pulic federal property does now give me a right to trespass. I can't park in their parking lot either. I can't wander around the halls, nor dance on the judges desks. The moment I trespassed, the officer was well within his rights to question me.

So I am not sure what I'd sue for, not getting as much sleep that night as I normally would?


----------



## skieur (Sep 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.
> 
> Simply because the federal courthouse is pulic federal property does now give me a right to trespass. I can't park in their parking lot either. I can't wander around the halls, nor dance on the judges desks. The moment I trespassed, the officer was well within his rights to question me.
> 
> So I am not sure what I'd sue for, not getting as much sleep that night as I normally would?



So, you were "acting suspiciously", not just taking photos?  And of course, you provided identification even when it was not necessary?  And of course you could have walked away any time while he was contacting his superior?  And of course, a federal courthouse is still a public place until you are told that unless you leave then you are trespassing.  And you know that an officer is NOT within his rights to question you until he has arrested you for trespassing,...which was not possible since the officer did NOT follow proper procedure related to trespassing.

So, you obviously are not even aware of your rights.

skieur


----------



## scrapfan85 (Sep 15, 2012)

From what I learned in college (I studied video production). Public images are fair game, you are legally allowed to take someone's picture if they are in public view. That's why Paparazzis are such a huge problem with celebrities, they can get away with that stuff, for the most part, and don't need the person's permission(although how they are able to sell the person's image in a magazine I don't know).

But from what I understand if you are making money of someone's image or going to publish it in any form, then you need permission. That's why I personally don't like taking pictures of people at all, it cuts out the worry of privacy and legal or not, I still feel like I'm invading someone's space if they are _AWARE_ I'm taking their photo, I guess it comes from myself who hates having their picture taken!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 15, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.
> ...



And what exactly is the "proper procedure" for trespassing? And you do know that there is a difference between arrest and detainment, right? Also, another important factor here is that I was on the clock and representing my employer. Certainly a professional like yourself would understand that.


----------



## skieur (Sep 15, 2012)

scrapfan85 said:


> From what I learned in college (I studied video production). But from what I understand if you are making money of someone's image or going to publish it in any form, then you need permission. That's why I personally don't like taking pictures of people at all, it cuts out the worry of privacy and legal or not, I still feel like I'm invading someone's space if they are _AWARE_ I'm taking their photo, I guess it comes from myself who hates having their picture taken!



That is incorrect, legally.  In the US, you need permission for a shot in a public place ONLY if it is used for advertising.  There are plenty of court decisions backing this up, as well as the law itself.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



First, trespassing is a civil, not a criminal offence, so unless you were on one of the listed top secret military sites where other laws apply, then any arrest would be difficult for any police or law enforcement officer to justify in the US.  In a public place, which includes federal buildings it is assumed that anyone has the right to be there, UNLESS told otherwise by a representative of the owner. In other words, you need to be told to leave, and REFUSE to do so, in order for TRESPASSING to have occured.   If you leave, when told to do so, then you are not trespassing and have not trespassed.

Detainment by the way by the police, is illegal without arrest.  Legally you can leave at any time, unless an officer says that you are under arrest, but taking photos is not illegal and technically you were not trespassing, so NO charge could be laid. Further the police would be laughed out of court, for suggesting that taking photos was a 'suspicious activity", since that right is covered under the US constitution.

skieur


----------



## deeky (Sep 15, 2012)

Skieur, for a Canadian (nothing specific to Canadians, just not from the US) you sure seem to know an aweful lot about US law.  Do you have a background in the law?  Experience?  Just curious, looking for some context and justification.


----------



## skieur (Sep 17, 2012)

deeky said:


> Skieur, for a Canadian (nothing specific to Canadians, just not from the US) you sure seem to know an aweful lot about US law. Do you have a background in the law? Experience? Just curious, looking for some context and justification.



Part of production planning for television is knowing all the union contracts of your crew both technical and artistic, and the talent, as well as knowing media related law/television and photography in the area that you are going to shoot in.  Among other things it is the best way for television stations to avoid law suits and bailing people out of jail.  

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Sep 17, 2012)

skieur said:


> First, trespassing is a civil, not a criminal offence
> skieur



This is not true, most places in the world this is the case, but it in the case of the United States, trespassing is a criminal offense.

So I'll just ignore the rest of your post.


----------



## haynie90 (Sep 17, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> _you need to get model releases from ever person you photograph whether they are the focal point or just in the background..._


for every recognizable face


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 18, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Trespassing on federal property is not a crime. Interesting. Go on. 



> In a public place, which includes federal buildings



Federal property, is a public place. Intriguing. I'm still listening



> In other words, you need to be told to leave, and REFUSE to do so, in order for TRESPASSING to have occured.



Ignorance is an excuse. Roger that.

"I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that."


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 18, 2012)

Also, keep this old adage in mind: Just because you _can _doesn't mean you _should_. If someone tells you they'd like you to not take your picture, move along...


----------



## gsgary (Sep 18, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> Also, keep this old adage in mind: Just because you _can _doesn't mean you _should_. If someone tells you they'd like you to not take your picture, move along...



No press the shutter you could get a good shot, nobody tells me what i can or connot shoot


----------



## manaheim (Sep 18, 2012)

deeky said:


> Case study for the sake of discussion - the popparazzi are EVERYWHERE.  They take pictures/video to sell.  Pretty sure they don't ever get releases from the stars/wannabe's that they shoot.  If the subjects do sign a release, they are crazy for willingly allowing that to be put out there.  But it's definitely not an advertisement for any product (except maybe indirectly for AA, Narcanon, etc.)  If there was grounds for prevention of the sale of those photos/videos, pretty sure some of Hollywood would have stood on it by now.



IIRC there is something in particular about stars where using their person falls within "accepatble use" or something like that.

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

Oh, and this topic has been discussed 12 million times.  Just sayin'.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 18, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> Also, keep this old adage in mind: Just because you _can _doesn't mean you _should_. If someone tells you they'd like you to not take your picture, move along...



mmm... yeah no.  Well, not necessarily.

I mean, I applaud you for being good about respecting people's wishes, but you're going to miss out on capturing life, and that is sort of a big part of what us photographer's do.


----------



## lisaf (Sep 27, 2012)

I ended up in photos in a local paper twice.  The first time I was part of a large group shot of a crowd at a transit hearing.  No one asked our names or anything, but there were a lot of us.    The 2nd was on a line for a bus on a very cold day.  There were between 5-10 of us.  The photographer did ask for our names, but no one wanted to give them, so they ran it without names.  No one asked us to sign releases.  It was 4 degrees out, we had scarves across our faces and hoods up to stay warm, so I don't think anyone could have identified us anyway, lol


----------



## skieur (Oct 9, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Are you trying to be funny with this post or just ignorant?

You have never been in a federal or state building to pay your taxes? I have.
You have never been on federal, state or municipal property to take pictures of the Statue of Liberty or other famous monuments? I have.
You have never been in a federal, state or municipal building to renew your driver's license? I have
You have never been in a federal, state, or municipal building to secure the required forms for pensions, unemployment or other benefits?

IF YOU HAVE BEEN IN A FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL building for any reason then it is a public place unless you indulged in breaking and entering to do business, fill out a form, or secure a service.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 9, 2012)

Is it "take comments out of context" day?

I've been in charge of the security of federal property.
Go on and tell me how all of those places are public property. Or how anything you just said is relevant.  

Also, Dig up another month old post to instigate a fight.

Open to the public =/= public space.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 9, 2012)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



If I invite you over, Skieur, you're not trespassing. If you go into a store and buying stuff, you're not trespassing.

If you come onto my front porch at 3:00AM when nobody would have any business being on my front porch and snap a bunch of pictures - you are trespassing, and I can ask you what your business is, I can ask you to leave, and I can call the police and they can _detain_ you in order to figure out wtf you were doing.

Courthouses are not parks, you can't just waltz in and do whatever you want.


----------



## skieur (Oct 17, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Is it "take comments out of context" day?
> 
> I've been in charge of the security of federal property.
> Go on and tell me how all of those places are public property. Or how anything you just said is relevant.
> ...



Well, you don't know american law, so perhaps that is why security guards are often accused of abusing the rights of citizens.  The US Supreme court in a case involving Sony several years ago defined a public place "as a place that is open to the general public" and not necessarily public property.

So you are not trespassing in a "public place" unless you are told so, by a representative of the owner.  (That is US law).

Only if you refuse to leave at that point, are you trespassing. (Again this is US law)

Trying doing some research.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 17, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Boy, you are really mixing up 2 very different cases by introducing something NEW.

Your front porch is not a public place so of course you can ask someone to leave, and even use appropriate force to force them to leave.  If they resist that appropriate force then the trespasser can be charged with assault.  In some states, you may even legally detain the trespasser until the police arrive.

Courthouses may not be parks, but most trials are open to the public which means that the public can "waltz in" so-to-speak.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Public space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The public can "waltz in" to pretty much any place that allows them to do so. Doesn't make that space restriction free.


----------



## skieur (Oct 17, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Wikipedia is not even a reliable source of information in any historical, archeological, or scientific field, let alone anything that is legal in nature.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Is it "take comments out of context" day?
> ...



Pretty versed on my authority being a sentry on a military base.

It has nothing to do with receiving a verbal command to leave.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



So let's see your reference that says you are not trespassing unless you are told to leave. I'm waiting.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

New York Penal - Article 140 - § 140.10 Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws



> § 140.05. Trespass.
> A  person  is  guilty  of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains   unlawfully in or upon premises.



Taking it a step further: Good luck proving you didn't know. While saying "I didn't know" in some cases will usually result in you being told to leave, you are still trespassing. 

Giving context to the topic. Whether you know you are trespassing or not, you can not publish any photographs taken on the property unless you are given permission. 

Like to see your reference about being verbally told to leave though. Because hopping a fence isn't enough right?


----------



## skieur (Oct 17, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> New York Penal - Article 140 - § 140.10 Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are NOT giving context to the topic.  You are CHANGING the context.  Why would anyone be "hopping a fence" into a public place.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > New York Penal - Article 140 - § 140.10 Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws
> ...



No I gave context in the same line.


> _Giving context to the topic. Whether you know you are trespassing or not, you can not publish any photographs taken on the property unless you are given permission._


That's a sole point.

The next line:





> _Like to see your reference about being verbally told to leave though. Because hopping a fence isn't enough right?_


was directed specifically towards your claim about trespassing, for the sake of trespassing in itself. I added the fence comment to give you something to think about.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 17, 2012)

it's oh so quiet.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

You have us on ignore but your still reading our posts and participating in the conversation lol. Interesting.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 17, 2012)

Not anymore...

damnit!


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 17, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Not anymore...
> 
> damnit!



Oh ok. Gotcha


----------



## unpopular (Oct 17, 2012)

that "show comment button" ... it's just so tempting!!


----------



## skieur (Oct 18, 2012)

Let me keep it KISS simple.

1. A public place does not usually have a fence. Examples are: a shopping plaza, public library, city hall, arena, museum etc.

2. Although a public place may be private property, from a legal and logical point of view there is an implied permission to enter and make purchases, do business, be entertained, etc.

3. All the people who enter a shopping plaza or other public place are NOT trespassing...therefore it is only if for example security asks you to leave because you are causing some kind of problem, that you ARE trespassing, if you refuse to do so, then you can be charged.

4. Taking photos is NOT illegal, whether you are trespassing or not, and as the photographer you have the rights to publish those photos as long as they are not used for advertising purposes.

Try some law books particularly in media law if you want to do some serious research and can understand what you are reading.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 18, 2012)

skieur said:


> Let me keep it KISS simple.
> 
> 1. A public place does not usually have a fence.  Examples are: a shopping plaza, public library, city hall, arena, museum etc.
> 
> ...



All of your condescension aside, and forgetting about everything else for a second. Provide me a reference that specifically states that you *have the right* to publish a photo if you are trespassing. 
Also, show me the reference that specifically states, that you are *not* trespassing if you are not told to leave, not matter the circumstances.

Let's see it.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 18, 2012)

I dont give a **** about all this just shoot until you get arrested and while they are dragging you to the car keep shooting


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 18, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I dont give a **** about all this just shoot until you get arrested and while they are dragging you to the car keep shooting



I have time to kill


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 18, 2012)

I would like to point out that all this is US law.

Here in germany, you cant take pictures of people in the street, unless (a) its a public event (such as a concert) or (b) the people are "just" in the picture and the subject of the image is clearly something else (such as architecture) or (c) you have permission.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 18, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Provide me a reference that specifically states that you *have the right* to publish a photo if you are trespassing.



This isn't exactly how the law works, you don't typically pass laws that grant rights, that's what the constitution is for. I'm sure that there are permissive laws, but typically you don't need the government's permission top do something that isn't otherwise illegal.

I believe Skieur is right and wrong here. He's wrong in the assertion that trespassing alone is never criminal, but he's also right hat if no law had been committed then you have every right to own the image, and do what you want with it provided that other laws are not broken.

Hypothetically, if you do criminally trespass in jurisdictions that have such a concept the owner of the property could have the court cease the image. However, I don't know if this has ever actually been proven in court.


----------



## skieur (Oct 18, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Let me keep it KISS simple.
> ...



All of your intellectual challenges aside, HOW can you not get it that you are NOT trespassing when you enter a public place such as a shopping plaza?????

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 18, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Provide me a reference that specifically states that you *have the right* to publish a photo if you are trespassing.
> ...



As I said somewhere else on this forum, the issue you are talking about was settled in a New York court about a year ago.  It was in the paper, so I don't know where you would find a reference to it on the net.

A photographer was trespassing when he took a photo and later sold it for publication.  The property owner sued the photographer claiming that the photographer could not benefit from committing a crime.  The judge ruled that the photographer benefitted from taking the photo which was not a crime, whether he was on someone else's property or not. The property owner lost.  

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Oct 18, 2012)

And as I said, that ruling does not apply to anywhere other than in the jurisdiction where the court was held. The issue of trespassing is not a constitutional issue.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 18, 2012)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



10 Important Legal Issues for Photographers | Photo Attorney



> _Are you on private property to take the photo? You&#8217;ll need the owner&#8217;s permission to shoot there or you&#8217;ll be trespassing._



You can't have a discussion without trying to belittle and insult one's intelligence can you? There's no intellectual challenge. Grow up.



> _HOW can you not get it that you are NOT trespassing when you enter a public place such as a shopping plaza?????_



I said this... where? You are avoiding my post. Show me your references.


----------



## skieur (Oct 18, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And as I said, that ruling does not apply to anywhere other than in the jurisdiction where the court was held. The issue of trespassing is not a constitutional issue.



You don't know the law.   Photography is in fact protected under the US Constitution as you should certainly know.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 18, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...




You insult your own intelligence by indirectly suggesting that one is trespassing  when one enters a public place such as a shopping centre.  Why else would you ask me to provide proof from a reference that such NOT the case. Don't avoid this issue by trying to change the context again.  

Keep it simple.  One issue at a time.


skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 18, 2012)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Dude, what the hell are you talking about? I never said anything of the sort. Stop trying to twist things. 
How did I indirectly suggest that? I'm not avoiding anything, I'm asking you directly to the point where I said any of this?

I asked you to provide proof that you had to be told to leave in order to be trespassing in any situation. 
Quote me where I give you this idea. This is like the 4th time I'm asking you to back up your claims and again you don't.


----------



## tevo (Oct 18, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> I dont give a **** about all this just shoot until you get arrested and while they are dragging you to the car keep shooting



"YOLO"


----------



## manaheim (Oct 18, 2012)

oh my god...

I mean on the one hand I should probablly be happy someone didn't start ANOTHER new thread on this topic, but are we SERIOUSLY still beating this to death?


----------



## skieur (Oct 18, 2012)

Well, here is your first mistake:Quoting you: Is it "take comments out of context" day?

I've been in charge of the security of federal property.
Go on and tell me how all of those places are public property. Or how anything you just said is relevant. 

Also, Dig up another month old post to instigate a fight.

Open to the public =/= public space.​Last edited by Ballistics; 10-09-2012 at 09:57 PM. 

I did not say that they were public property, I said that they were public places as defined by the US Supreme Court. I also said in other posts in this thread including my KISS post that public places can be private property. The requirement is public access not public ownership.

Have you got this simple legal concept, yet?...ie. that a public place is not necessarily public property.?

There is no sense moving on, if you don't understand this.

skieur​


----------



## unpopular (Oct 19, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > And as I said, that ruling does not apply to anywhere other than in the jurisdiction where the court was held. The issue of trespassing is not a constitutional issue.
> ...



photography isn't the issue, but rather if the photo was obtained illegally.

this simply isn't a free speech issue, but rather the interpretation of local law concerning the criminality of trespassing. But none of this matters to me here in Montana, only the US Supreme Court has absolute universal jurisdiction, though the federal appeals court tend to agree with other district decisions.

I know that a lot of people have a hard time understanding the federal court systems, but trust me, it doesn't matter at all what a NY state court says, and federal appeal courts disagree with one another all the time. Just because a court ruled something in NY state does not necessarily mean it aplies to the rest of the country.

An attorney can try to persuade the court with the rulings from another jurisdiction, but nothing prevents the judge to conclude that the ruling in the other jurisdiction is "wrong" even if the two courts are at the same level.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 19, 2012)

If they didnt see taking the shot how would they prove it was taken illegally


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 19, 2012)

gsgary said:


> If they didnt see taking the shot how would they prove it was taken illegally



Vantage point. The image can be used to prove that you were trespassing.


----------



## skieur (Oct 19, 2012)

gsgary said:


> If they didnt see taking the shot how would they prove it was taken illegally



The shot was not taken illegally because it is not illegal to take the shot.  That is US law.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Oct 19, 2012)

Which US law?


----------



## skieur (Oct 19, 2012)

1. Photos can be taken in any public place such as a shopping centre, museum, city hall etc. unless there are signs to the contrary or you are told photos are forbidden by security or a rep. of the owner.

2.  If you refuse to stop taking photos at this point, and/or refuse to leave then you can be charged with trespassing.

3. Your photos that you have taken are yours with all the same rights as are true if they had been taken in any other public place such as the street etc.

Notice the law is against trespassing NOT taking photos.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Oct 19, 2012)

There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 19, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Which US law?



Don't even bother.


----------



## skieur (Oct 21, 2012)

unpopular said:


> There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.



The act of taking photos is LEGAL with the usual few exceptions of top secret, child porn, etc.  If the photos have not violated these few exceptions then, the photographer can publish the photos or make any other use of them, with the exception of advertising which requires the permission of the person subject in the photo.

And please!  Don't be sufficiently silly to ask me what law specifies what is NOT ILLEGAL.  You know *** well that laws are not written that way.

skieur


----------



## fmw (Oct 22, 2012)

Mr. Campbell is correct.  I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round.  She was certainly in public.  The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit.  There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.


----------



## usayit (Oct 22, 2012)

wah?  fmw?  blast from the past?


----------



## skieur (Oct 22, 2012)

fmw said:


> Mr. Campbell is correct. I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round. She was certainly in public. The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit. There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.




Who is Mr. Campbell????  Without details your example is meaningless.  Who? What? Where? When?   Who won?   What was the judgement?...etc.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 22, 2012)

skieur said:


> Without details your example is meaningless.
> skieur



 Awesome.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 22, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference between the act of taking photos, and the property rights of the photographer.
> ...



The issue here isn't if taking the photo was legal or not, but whether or not a photograph obtained while criminally trespassing is subject to property seizure, with the proceeds being the intellectual property and the crime being trespassing. This only applies in jurisdictions where trespassing is a criminal offense.

In this case, while it is not illegal to _take_ the photo the property which results from the photo having been taken may have been obtained illegally and COULD BE in THEORY subject to court-compelled seizure. This may apply, again, in theory, in jurisdictions (not NY state, apparently) where trespassing alone is a crime.

So, as you can see (hopefully) there are two issues here: one is the act of taking a photograph, and the other is the ownership of the intellectual property of the photograph that had been taken. In any case, the photographer legally owns the IP unless the court orders otherwise - in other words, simply trespassing in itself does not void your copyright without a court-ordered injunction - an extremely unlikely event.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Oct 23, 2012)

My rule that applies to me: Shoot people. Don't make money with photos of candid street subjects. Use them as examples of your candid taking skills to add to your portfolio. I don't want to start any trouble whatsoever.

I don't plan on making money shooting street candid, however if I ever apply for shooting for the city or local paper then they are there when I need them to show as examples along with the stories behind them


----------



## gsgary (Oct 23, 2012)

If people dont want to be photographed they should stay in


----------



## unpopular (Oct 23, 2012)

Or look like a long haired hippy freak that lives in an unauthorized cabin on public land.

Thats what I do.


----------



## fmw (Oct 23, 2012)

skieur said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Campbell is correct. I'm reminded of a photographer who made a nice image of a little girl riding on a merry go round. She was certainly in public. The photographer sold the image the had to deal with a serious lawsuit. There are some exceptions but basically, have model releases for any image that has recognizable faces.
> ...



Mr. Campbell is a man who posted earlier in this thread with an accurate assessment of commercial use images.  As to the court case, my old mind doesn't remember the details other than than the photographer lost the case.  If it is meaningless then so be it.  I recommend you ignore it.


----------



## skieur (Oct 23, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



And to add, there was no benefit from an unlawful activity, since taking pictures is NOT unlawful, as the New York Judge ruled.

Therefore the photographer retained all rights to his photos.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 23, 2012)

fmw said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



No it wasn't. Commercial use has been defined as for ADVERTISING PURPOSES. A very prominent case in New York determined that definition.  The details are easy to find, related to a shot of a rabbi which was taken in the street and sold at a gallery.  The rabbi sued but the photographer won.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Oct 23, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


*NEW 
YORK
COURT
DECISIONS
DON'T
APPLY
IN
MONTANA

or anywhere else outside that court's jurisdiction aside from primary persuasive argument*​


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 23, 2012)

I suppose I'm probably Mr. Campbell (Tim).  I did some digging a while ago and found several reference sites created by photographers who did some considerable research.  I then spoke to several personal friends who happen to be attorneys... although none of them are attorneys with a speciality in this area.  

What you are, in effect, saying when you mention that in NY it was established that "commercial" use was defined as "advertising purposes" is that a jury in New York decide based on that fact. 

But one thing my attorney friends are fond of reminding me is that:  You can get away with anything as long as you are SURE that you can get 12 people to go along with you (referring to the assumption that a jury is 12 people... by the way in my local court a jury is only 6 people and a 7th "alternate"... it turns out the number of people on a jury isn't even a constant from place to place.).  

If money changes hands (or even if there's an offer for money to change hands) someone can argue that you are engaging in "commerce".  The fact that it changed hands for purposes of "advertising" could be interpreted differently in a different court.

I suppose my point in all of this is:  if you are seriously concerned about your legal rights, or, if you've been challenged about one of your images, then you really should consult an expert who specializes in this area in YOUR locality.  All you'll get from the internet is generalizations based on "patterns" that most localities tend to pattern their laws after other localities.  That will be of little consequence if you're accused of violating some law or someone else's rights only to find out that there's some variation in the law in the location where you took the shot.

Lastly... a good attorney isn't someone who goes to court for you and wins.  Rather... a good attorney is someone who gives you sound advice that keeps you from ending up in court in the first place. It costs money to go to court.  You might find an attorney to represent you for a percentage of the winnings when you are the one suing someone else.  When you are hiring an attorney to defend you from a civil suite, there are generally no attorneys who take those cases on "contingency" (because "winning" really just means you don't have to pay out.)  That means that even if you are right, it may cost you substantially to prove that you are right.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 24, 2012)

What about books,HCB has sold thousands but i bet he had no releases from people


----------



## skieur (Oct 28, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Sure they do.  That is the definition in media law handbooks and the definition that journalists work under, throughout North America.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 28, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> I suppose I'm probably Mr. Campbell (Tim). I did some digging a while ago and found several reference sites created by photographers who did some considerable research. I then spoke to several personal friends who happen to be attorneys... although none of them are attorneys with a speciality in this area.
> 
> What you are, in effect, saying when you mention that in NY it was established that "commercial" use was defined as "advertising purposes" is that a jury in New York decide based on that fact.
> 
> .



No actually I am saying that this is the definition used in both the US and Canada, since journalists have asserted those rights for the last several decades.

skieur


----------



## bluerob (Oct 28, 2012)

I was shooting along Venice Beach once and was immediately harangued by "people" demanding $10 for being a "model" in the photo - not the ones that dress up or act as aliens or whatever. Thankfully, patrolling Police were nearby as it was going to turn ugly. Their attitude was that it was a public place and as long as I wasn't taking portrait type shots of people (if someone approached me and asked to see if I was on the memory card and asked to be deleted, then I had to), then I could take "general" landscape shots. I'm an Aussie that was on holidays at the time.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 29, 2012)

skieur said:


> Sure they do.  That is the definition in media law handbooks and the definition that journalists work under, throughout North America.
> skieur



Rulings in one equal or lower court can be used as persuasive argument, but they are not mandatory, and only apply in jurisdictions where the ruling can be applied.

For example: if State "a" has no law concerning chewing gum, while state "b" explicitly says it is not legal under any circumstance, a defendant in a case involving gum chewing in state "b" cannot use a previous court ruling from state "a".

However, if the US supreme court rules that chewing gum is a fundamental or constitutional right, then the defendant in state "b" can freely chew gum.

Under your logic, the supreme court has no function.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 29, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Rulings in one equal or lower court can be used as persuasive argument, but they are not mandatory, and only apply in jurisdictions where the ruling can be applied.
> 
> For example: if State "a" has no law concerning chewing gum, while state "b" explicitly says it is not legal under any circumstance, a defendant in a case involving gum chewing in state "b" cannot use a previous court ruling from state "a".
> 
> ...



So is it ok to chew gum while shooting on the street ? not that i chew gum it really pisses me off all the gum on the pathment


----------



## unpopular (Oct 29, 2012)

Unless you're in State B, though I understand that most states have a No Chewing and Shooting law.


----------



## jessicagreen765 (Oct 29, 2012)

You can anything that is public, just don't take pictures of people.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 29, 2012)

gsgary said:


> So is it ok to chew gum while shooting on the street ? not that chew gum it really pisses me off all the gum on the pathment



Not in Singapore.


----------



## skieur (Oct 30, 2012)

bluerob said:


> I was shooting along Venice Beach once and was immediately harangued by "people" demanding $10 for being a "model" in the photo - not the ones that dress up or act as aliens or whatever. Thankfully, patrolling Police were nearby as it was going to turn ugly. Their attitude was that it was a public place and as long as I wasn't taking portrait type shots of people (if someone approached me and asked to see if I was on the memory card and asked to be deleted, then I had to), then I could take "general" landscape shots. I'm an Aussie that was on holidays at the time.



Learn your rights.  You do not even have to show the police your memory card without a warrant.  They can also be charged with harassing you.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Sure they do. That is the definition in media law handbooks and the definition that journalists work under, throughout North America.
> ...



The only issue related to publishing a photo of someone taken in a public place relates to privacy and by law there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.  This includes a public place like a mall that is private property.  All courts have backed that up.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 30, 2012)

jessicagreen765 said:


> You can anything that is public, just don't take pictures of people.



I take all the pictures of people I wish in public and have not even been approached by anyone, public, security, or police.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Oct 30, 2012)

Die thread, DIE!


----------



## deeky (Oct 30, 2012)

This _was_ interesting to read, but now I've heard it all at least three times.

You know what they say about a dead horse...... kick it.  Kick it!  KICK IT!!!!!!  (Insert sarcasm here)


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

You're totally right Skieur. Bend it however you want.


----------



## skieur (Nov 1, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You're totally right Skieur. Bend it however you want.



I don't need to bend anything.  You have not quoted any law in Montana that says that the photographer does not own the rights to his work, whether taken on private property or not....Of course you can't, because no such thing exists.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Nov 1, 2012)

blah blah blah...


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 2, 2012)

As it fits into the thread:

Ming Thein about Street Photography: What is street photography?

Oh, and I would like to add that I think his photographs in that article are just amazing.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 2, 2012)

skieur said:
			
		

> I don't need to bend anything.  You have not quoted any law in Montana that says that the photographer does not own the rights to his work, whether taken on private property or not....Of course you can't, because no such thing exists.
> 
> skieur



I say **** the law just shoot until you get stopped


----------



## Murasaki (Nov 2, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I say **** the law just shoot until you get stopped




That is what I am living by at the moment, but in Japan if I am stopped I am going to lose everything, because the police take everything as evidence, cameras, PC, SD Cards, CDs anything media related is taken and if found guilty of breaking privacy laws you will not get any of it back!


----------



## gsgary (Nov 2, 2012)

Murasaki said:
			
		

> That is what I am living by at the moment, but in Japan if I am stopped I am going to lose everything, because the police take everything as evidence, cameras, PC, SD Cards, CDs anything media related is taken and if found guilty of breaking privacy laws you will not get any of it back!



You didn't mention film so im ok ha ha


----------



## Madcapmagishion (Nov 7, 2012)

If your standing in a public place, you can photograph anything or anyone you can capture with your camera. Even the police beating a suspect.

And I don't believe that you need to get any model releases signed by anyone, unless you're going to sell the photo, and make money on it. Or use
it in anyway that suggests they are endorsing something/someone.

Here is a PDF document link that explains what right you as a photographer has. click this> ... Download The Photographers Right in PDF format


----------



## unpopular (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm pretty sure you only need a release for only certain types of sale; so-called "commercial" work, not editorial. Obviously you don't need the police's release to sell a photo of them beating a guy.

KMH has also pointed out in the past that it's the company who uses the image that is typical liable, not the photographer, as they are the ones using the image for endorsement.

My example on this is that it's legal to say "Magcapmag was at the parade drinking a coke" without his permission. It's not legal to say "Drink Coke: Magcapmag does!" without his permission.


----------



## skieur (Nov 9, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I'm pretty sure you only need a release for only certain types of sale; so-called "commercial" work, not editorial. Obviously you don't need the police's release to sell a photo of them beating a guy.
> 
> KMH has also pointed out in the past that it's the company who uses the image that is typical liable, not the photographer, as they are the ones using the image for endorsement.
> 
> My example on this is that it's legal to say "Magcapmag was at the parade drinking a coke" without his permission. It's not legal to say "Drink Coke: Magcapmag does!" without his permission.



Gee, now your are parotting my view originally expressed much further back.  Why all the dumb aggressive and negative responses previously?

skieur


----------

