Candid photos - legality?

weisgrauI am not an attorney said:
That was very eloquent, thank you very much!

As far as I know, in the UK, slander (holding someone up to ridicule with a photograph or caption or voice-over, that sort of thing) has the burden of proof reversed vice the USA. In the USA, the plantiff must prove that they are NOT a [whatever negative thing], while in the UK, the defendant must prove that they ARE a [whatever].

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
TPPhotog said:
Taking the events one at a time:

In the UK you have the right to photograph anything in a public place or anything that can be seen from a public place.

No-one including a Police Officer in uniform has the right to handle you (assault), threaten you (threatening behavior, breach of the peace and possibly assault), your camera (again assault), or to remove your film (theft) because you have taken a shot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but recent events in England have made photographing young children in public which are not your own an illegal act. I refer to the editorial pages of Amateur Photographer, a magazine with a tenure of over a century and no real leanings towards the sensationalistic. A recent issue advised readers to burn or otherwise destroy books by a particular photographer - it has naked children in it (with parental permission, releases, parents present at photo session, non-sexual poses, etc) and a person in the UK was just sent to prison for possession of child pornography on the strength of owning that book, among others. The court was asked for a ruling on the book and they said it was illegal kiddy porn, plain and simple. Funny, it was still on bookshelves at the time.

Anyway - the point is, taking photos of children in public in the UK can get you arrested, detained, and have your camera/film taken away by the police, as I understand it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Hi Bill,

Many people are confused by this one as many schools, swimming pools and organizations have banned photography on their property.

There has never been any act of law passed in the UK against photographing children in public with or without permission of a parent or guardian. The government has left it to the "managers" of each place to make their own decision on the subject.

How the Police would react or is that over react is another matter of course 🙁

In the UK the way around holding someone up to ridicule is not to put a title on the photograph 😉
 
Dear Bill,

Not illegal -- just bloody awkward, as you point out. The Hamilton book thing was apparently a false alarm: he bought the Hamilton book AFTER being nicked for child pornography, but an unusually enthusiastic PC Plod produced the quote in question. A correction has apparently gone in to AP.

I've just sent Garry [the editor] a piece about how AP should take the lead and apply for a book-burning permit in Trafalgar Square.

Cheers,

Roger
 
The time are changing. Here’s what I mean.

Most of the laws addressing privacy have been on the books for a long time. They were written before video cameras, digital cameras and cell phone equipped with digital cameras. They also were written before there was an Internet capable of sending a photo to tens of millions of users in a matter of seconds.

Thirty years ago, when people were walking down the street with sons, daughters or grandchildren and a man with a camera snapped their picture, it was usually taken as a compliment—somebody thought you or yours were worthy of a picture. Today, however, if a stranger starts shooting photos of a loved one, you wonder if they are just a amateur “street photographer” or a pedophile or rapist taking a photo to make it easier to identify their next victim. Or maybe they are going home to post the photos on one of the thousands of Internet sites that cater to perverts.

Then there are the camera phones. Is the guy at the next table in the restaurant holding his phone out in front of him because he’s trying to see to dial a number—or is he trying to get a shot up your girlfriend’s dress to post on line for the enjoyment of his friends?

Maybe there aren’t more perverts out there than there were 30 years ago. Maybe we just didn’t know they were perverts. But technology has made it a lot easier for the low lifes to operate. Which, along with all the stories in the media, have made the person-on-the-street a lot more cautious. Should the fact that you tell them that it’s OK because you are a “real photographer” make them more comfortable?

That’s why I expect there will be more restrictive laws governing photography. I’m not saying it’s right. I saying the tenor of the times will drive such legislation.

You say you will fight to the bitter end for your right to take pictures wherever you please? Well, I suspect there are a growing number of people out there, who feel just as strongly that they have a right to try to protect what seems to be their dwindling privacy. And it will only take a few more highly-publicized incidents of someone caught shooting photos on the street for criminal (or sleazy) purposes for the legislatures to start passing more restrictive laws governing what can and can’t be photographed on the street. And the pleas of relatively small group of amateur (or professional) photographers to protect their artistic rights aren’t going to be considered for more than a couple of seconds.

I’ve been involved in photography, as both a professional and an amateur, for about fifty years. I have shot my share of “people pictures” in the past. But the older I get the less inclined I am to point a camera at someone who is simply minding their own business on a street. And the older I get the easier it is for me to understand the attitude of the man in the restaurant – “You are invading my space – If I want to share my life with the world I’ll sign up to be an idiot on a reality TV show!” It’s hard to blame him.
 
The real thing that has always confused me it that when I used to freelance, as soon as I said I was hoping to sell to one of the local newspapers every parent shoved their child in front of my lens regardless of if I wanted them in it or not.

Now once published that picture is in the newspaper and is sold for pennies on every news counter around the county. Also anyone could 'phone the newspaper and buy a copy of the picture no questions asked and therefore for whatever reason they wanted.

However as soon as it is for art or the pleasure of photography the same parents become paranoid :bang:
 
Want to hear about the nightmare we're having here in Quebec?

Just like Joe, this under the IANAL umbrella. This has been reported to me by a fellow photographer firend of mine who attentded a conference on the matter given by a photographer's association (most probably CAPIC).

Quebec, a province of Canada, has its own Charter of Rights and it has absolute precedence over all other laws (civil laws).

A few years ago, there was a case of a teenage girl who ended up on the cover of a magazine (very small one). She ended up sueing the photographer and the paper, claiming her friends at school were making fun of her because of the picture. She won and photographers started losing their right to take pictures.

There have been a few other cases over the years that have added rulings that are now used defacto by the courts in such matters. The idea is that the right to privacy is absolute and supercedes any other right, especially those of a photographer to take and publish pictures.

Street photography is virtually dead here because of this. Anyone in a picture, and I mean anyone in a crowd of a 100 000 people in your shot, can sue you at anytime and they will win even before entering court. The idea of "being in public", "being on the street", "being in a crowd" or others alike that used to turn everyone into fair game is out completely.

"Make them sign a release" some might say. Well, not really. Our Civil Code states clearly that you cannot renounce to your rights. Never. So, if someone signs a realease (and BTW, release forms that cover eternity are not allowed anymore), they can change their mind the next day, go to a judge and have the release declared void. They can go back to the judge later, if they changed their mind, and let you use the darn picture. Crazy enough for you? Wait... This apparently applies to hired models too! Photographers turned into yoyos!

An acceptable release form should indicate exactly which picture (frame) is to be used, by who, for what market, how many copies will be produced, etc. It has to be for a very lkimited period of time. No more eternity. This means that if you have a masterpiece shot you want to publish or even just show in a gallery, you need a new release signed for every single instance. You'll have to hire someone just to keep track of all the people in your pictures for the rest of your life.

So, apparently, street photography has turned into a form of Russian roulette in Quebec.

Cheers!
 
If I ever visit Canada to work with models please shoot me and not with film 🙁 That would mean all the model pictures I have would have no value even though I have a release for them and in the UK could sell them for publication at any time during my life or my family could for 70 (don't think it's changed) years after my death.
 
Actually, this delirium is happening only in the province of Quebec. The rest of Canada's civil laws are based on the British Common Law (Quebec's civil law is based on the Napoleon Code) and it still uses the old rules like the validity of a release, the fact that if you're in a crowd you have little privacy, etc...

Of course, if you intend to shoot anywhere, you should check with a legal expert and not play Russian roulette.
 
But that could mean that even landscape photography is banned if there is someone somewhere in the field of fire 🙁 What happens with snap shooting tourists who might sell the odd picture to a travel company or magazine?
 
TPPhotog said:
But that could mean that even landscape photography is banned if there is someone somewhere in the field of fire 🙁 What happens with snap shooting tourists who might sell the odd picture to a travel company or magazine?

If there's somebody in the picture and they're not happy to find out it's been published (anywhere in time, btw)... Bada-bing! Bada-boom!
 
this is an interesting subject and here is my own story which took place in Late June at the corner of Queen and Church in Toronto. I was on the hunt for camera gear in the end getting a Nikkor 105/2.5 lens for my F and Nikkormat. I was shooting on the East side of Church St. the park on the west side with my Contax IIIa. I then hear a woman call out and raised a huge commotion about me taking a picture of her car, I replied in a calm level toned voice that no I was not shooting her car ( a beater Toyota Camry) and that it would not be up for sale anywhere. I then went indside one of the large pawn shops to put some distance. She followed me in and essentially stalked me to the point I wonder if she was spoiling for a physical confrontation. I was smart to be inside to have neutral witnesses and I was not out for a fight as I was playing with a 50 year old camera and wearing a watch belonging to my dad. I talked her down calmly and she mellowed a bit as she realized everyone in the store was looking at her as if she was nuts. I waited until she left and went over to Henrys Clearance Center and I found my lens.
I was out in the open, hence the subject matter was fair game, the park that is. In the end the photo itself was under exposed and was no good and there was only a small part of the car roof in the shot. Moral of the story, guage the scene, do you have a comfort level with what you see. I used all my Jedi powers to talk my way out of the situation. Some people are spoiling for a fight, don't give them the excuse. I am very careful these days, I trust my instinct a lot more.

Bill Smith
 
kiev4a said:
The time are changing. Here’s what I mean.

[Snip - excellent points]

And the older I get the easier it is for me to understand the attitude of the man in the restaurant – “You are invading my space – If I want to share my life with the world I’ll sign up to be an idiot on a reality TV show!” It’s hard to blame him.

Your points are all good ones - and all emotion-based. Yes, people are more wary now. Yes, privacy laws were written before our modern world. Yes, I can *understand* the feelings of a person who does not want their photograph taken.

In my opinion, this changes nothing in terms of law. Will it change things with regard to privacy rights in the future? Hard to say, but I suspect not. Here's why.

Supreme Court Justice Brandeis famously said that the ultimate right, the tuti capo di capo, is the right to be let alone. Privacy is paramount.

But there are other rights too. And rights which do not overlap each other are each preeminant in their own baliwick. The right of free speech, the right of the press, these are also enshrined and marked as 'not to be infringed upon' in the Bill of Rights (USA, of course, YMMV).

When push comes to shove, your right to privacy can only be asserted when you shield yourself inside your own property. "A man's home is his castle," they say, and you're safe from prying eyes there.

But when you step out in public - despite an understandable desire to be let alone - everyone sees you. You walk by a crowd of people and they see you. Can you demand that they not look at you? What if you're with someone other than your wife? What if you're doing someting that would embarrass you? Most people would agree that if someone saw you, you would have no right to demand that they look away. What happened to your 'right to privacy' in that case?

And if the person had a camera? If they took your photo? What right do you have that is somehow different than if a person just personally witnessed you? That is the stand that the courts have taken, so far. Will this change? Time will tell.

As previously discussed - when your photo *is* taken, you certainly have the right to control how it is used commercially, or to refuse permission for such use. And you have recourse to the courts if this is not done.

You mentioned many reasons why a person might not want a photo taken of their child by a stranger - paedophiles might put his or her photo on the internet, do God knows what with it. I am not mocking your concern, I understand the sympathize. What to do?

People drink and drive. Then do terrible things when they drive DUI. Shall we then ban cars?

People beat their wives and husbands. Shall we then ban marriage?

People have children and then abuse them in horrible ways. Shall we then regulate the having of children?

The solution, it seems to me, has never been to ban the lawful activities of a class of people in order to 'protect' another class of people. Even the hated Klan is permitted to exist - to march - to demonstrate - and we do this because we live in a free society and we do not retreat from evil.

At the same time, government surveillance of our citizenry has been increasing. Cameras everywhere - video and still. We're all being filmed - without our permission - and who knows where these images end up? Who sees them?

So, I point a camera at citizens without their permission. I take their photos and I do God knows what with them. But I demonstrate, on a daily basis, that we still live in a free society. I can take a photo of a citizen - or a cop. I can take a photo of a building, or I can take a photo of a bridge. And if I stop - if I give up - if I say that nobody likes me taking their photo anyway, then do you have your privacy back?

I eliminate the notion that you have privacy if you are outside of your property. Be aware that if you go out, people are watching - possibly recording - and demonstrating that we have the right to free speech and so on.

Or something like that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
The worry about privacy being violated by having your picture take in public or private is slightly amusing given the mushrooming use of security/survailance cameras. Some people even like the idea of them.

Bob
 
ack. Sucks to eat my words and be envious of others'. I shouldn't have said that grabbing pics inside a restaurant wasn't "strictly legal." Looking back, I probably should have just pointed out what I said about probability of legal problems, and not touch on actual legalities at all. But thankfully BillM and Weisgrau gave me an education (well, more likely just answered the thread topic), and the rundown on civil and criminal law is especially good, too. I respectfully doff my jester's hat to those who can elucidate their rights.

That said, I still believe there must be better ways to deal with the angry subject than to declare my rights. Legality is among my concerns shooting, but not the sole criteria, and most disputes are not going to involve the police or a lawyer. If a paranoid citizen already suspects photographers to be pedos and rapists, and then runs into aggressive defiance from a street photographer, then in that person's eyes I would bet 100 percent of photographers will be bad. I can exercise my right by shooting whomever I please in public, but I exercise my citizenship trying to have a civil exchange with that person. Yet in another situation, say when I shoot around my home, where there's interesting but sketchy apartments across the street, there's a chance someone will try, intimidatingly, to ask me wtf I think I'm doing. At that point the legality of what I'm doing may be the more minor offense in question. Then I have to try to try to bro down people so that I'm OK again, and can shoot in the neighborhood. At that point, rights are on the back burner as I'm more concerened with making the day-to-day not more difficult than it has to be.

Basically, I'm saying there must be better ways to handle these situations without invoking the extremes of legal footing on right to shoot/right to privacy. I'm not saying some kumbaya crap, just that a little sweet talk might help the situation more. Granted a lot of people may not have the time or be unwilling to hear an explanation. It's an instance where you have 10 seconds to explain yourself. But any cues on how to make that 10 seconds sing are surely welcome.
 
Back
Top Bottom