# Candid portraiture law



## jovince3000 (Apr 21, 2015)

I've recently came across of an Angry Joe while taking candid portraits, and I was wondering how you guys are generally dealing with people a bit too self-conscious that don't like having their photo taken and start screaming at the photographer ( you and me ). 

Here in Canada, we are free to take pictures of people in any situation where the person is not expecting privacy ( namely, home with curtain closed) on public space ( government-owned space considered public unless specified ). And I've eared that it's closely the same in the united state and most other country in the world with some quirk here and there. 

So, knowing that you intent to sell / expose your picture / give the rights to a stock agency, how do you generally deal with this situation ? Do you promptly delete the photo as the person ask or do you stand firm on your right and do not delete the picture / try to negotiate with a little something ? 

Also, are model release form required if you intent to sell your work?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 21, 2015)

If people don`t want to be photographed, don`t photograph them.  It`s a little thing called `respect`.  As far as release law goes, I know QC statutes are a little different in certain areas as regards privacy, however in general I would recommend getting a release from anyone whose likeness you intend to use.  Since stock imagery is almost always commercial use, any stock image would be pretty much worthless without one, and while you may be able to plead journalistic license, I would err on the side of caution.


----------



## jovince3000 (Apr 21, 2015)

I got the feeling you've got a wrong idea about me, if people ask me to stop, I'll stop. I vented a little in the last post I gotta admit because the person in this case was borderline violent, without passing by the "ask nicely" stage. Sorry about that. 

Since you said that QC is a bit different, I've gone and do some more thorough research since it's the place where I live. Turn out, you can follow these conditions and be safe : 

- As long as it's part of a "event of public interest" you can take pictures of anybody participating to the event, even the "curious non-participating actors" As long as they are not the main subject of the image. 

- if you use someone as your main subject, you need a release form to use and publish your work, unless it is part of an event of public interest as mentioned in the first point. 

-Any person being there by chances ( not being the main subject of the image ) doesn't need ta release. 

That's pretty much it for QC law. Since that part is answered, I'd like to turn the conversation a little and focus on my other question, how do you deal with that kind of situation ? did it ever happened to you?


----------



## KmH (Apr 21, 2015)

jovince3000 said:


> Also, are model release form required if you intent to sell your work?


That depends on how the photo will be used and the laws wherever you are.
Here in the US, selling prints of a photo that has people in it is considered an editorial  use, not a commercial use.
Here in the US, model/property release law is state law, not federal law, so there are 50 somewhat different versions.
US copyright law is federal law so there is just one version.
However, there is the International Berne Convention, so with the global reach of the Internet and 160+ signator countries............

Most stock agencies will want you to have on file a valid, signed model release so they can license a photo  for both editorial and commercial purposes.

If you want to use the photo to promote yourself, here in the US it would depend on the circumstances that produced the photo.
If made under controlled conditions or in private you are well advised to have a valid, signed model release on file for a commercial use.
If you go to a public park, tell someone where to stand, how to pose, that is 'controlled conditions' and you would want a signed release.

If made in public at random, like shooting street, you would not need a model release for self-promotion or self-advertising but would need a release if any 3rd party wants the photo for a commercial use.

Another not cut-and-dried issue is recongnizability.
A persons face does not need to be visible to still be recognized.
Tattoos, a unique hair style, unique clothes, scars, and other things can make someone recognizable.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 21, 2015)

I tend not to take a picture if the person notices and says no - just out of respect as Tirediron said.
I can only remember 3 times in the last 10 years that someone was angry.
Each time it seemed odd and out of place.
I did delete the pictures at the time - but only because I didn't see them as great shots.


----------



## jovince3000 (Apr 21, 2015)

Thans for all the imputs, that help a lot ^^


----------



## tirediron (Apr 21, 2015)

jovince3000 said:


> ...That's pretty much it for QC law. Since that part is answered, I'd like to turn the conversation a little and focus on my other question, how do you deal with that kind of situation ? did it ever happened to you?


 Don't forget the interpretation aspect.  Aubry v. Editions


----------



## dennybeall (Apr 21, 2015)

To answer your second question - If someone goes ballistic I will apologize to them and push some buttons on the back of the camera as I tell them I'm deleting their picture.  If the photos are not good I most likely will actually delete them.


----------

