Curiosity question. Posting pictures with/without subjects permission.

[wacky941]

I see quite many pictures throughout the RFF including in the gallery that are pictures of everyday people in their own routines just living life some appear to be clueless of their picture being taken so, that makes me wonder, do you have to get permission from those individuals to post their picture before it's posted?

Maybe, I'm reading more into it than there really is but, I don't know what the answer is so, I figured it's always better to check before just arbitrarily posting pictures that someone might be upset for having a picture posted without their permission. In the past, I've had people take group photos that included me and pictures that were taken while I was in the normal operations of my work day, some have contacted me to get my written permission before posting onto the internet and many have not. Personally, I really don't care but, many don't share my opinion.

Just curious because some of the pictures I've taken, I wouldn't have a clue as to how to contact them. What is the normal protocol for posting pictures like that here?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

In the United States, you do not need anyone's permission to photograph them in public places and you do not need their permission to put photos of them online or display and sell the photos in art galleries or publish them.

You do need permission to use the photos for things the law regards as 'commercial work.' This would be things like selling the photo to a business that uses it in their advertising.

 

[wacky941]

Okay, that's pretty much what I was thinking the answer was but, I just wasn't sure.

I wanted to make sure that I was doing the right thing if and when I decided to post random pictures of people doing everyday things especially when they are the direct subject.

Thank you.

 

[cz23]

Chris' answer is spot on from the legal perspective in the US. But there is also a more subjective dimension to this question. It concerns sensitivity to and respect for the possible feelings of our subjects. Opinions vary widely on where that particular line is. It's something we all must determine for ourselves.

John

 

[mpaniagua]

Chris' answer is spot on from the legal perspective in the US. But there is also a more subjective dimension to this question. It concerns sensitivity to and respect for the possible feelings of our subjects. Opinions vary widely on where that particular line is. It's something we all must determine for ourselves.

John

Also, be aware that Internet is global, its doesnt belong to USA only, so other countries could have differente regulation. I suppose the best advise should be to be sensible. Like John says, try to be aware of your subject feelings. I suppose the best rule of thumb is to try to put yourself on your subject shoes. "Would I like to be posted on the internet like this?", that kind of quetions.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Exactly!

HCB and GW public photography was reviewed by publishers and galleries. But I'm not sure if it was necessary to moderate at all.

These days anyone could post anything on the Internet. And same what happened with the western television, cinematography where morality was flashed to the toilet happened with public photography online. Yes, I took some naughty pics on my "early days", but many popular photographs on street and "street photography" groups on Flickr have no sense of humanity and taste at all.

HCB was looking at the world as surrealist and humanist (while stealing and hunting), GW was America student (while smiling and nodding).
Now every time I'm opening Flickr street photography groups I see people neglected. Bruce Gilden wrongly interpreted and copied.

 

[willie_901]

In the United States, you do not need anyone's permission to photograph them in public places and you do not need their permission to put photos of them online or display and sell the photos in art galleries or publish them.

You do need permission to use the photos for things the law regards as 'commercial work.' This would be things like selling the photo to a business that uses it in their advertising.

Exactly (in the US).

I would add you cannot photograph people in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The phrase 'reasonable expectation of privacy' has different interpretations in different states and local jurisdictions. There are numerous court cases where the boundaries of "expectation of privacy' were at issue. I won't bore you with a summary. In general, if one is in not on private property and and, or in plain view, you have no 'legal expectation of privacy'.

Please understand I realize there is a difference between legal rights and personal ethics. I am not speaking to personal ethics. I don't really care about individuals' personal ethics because... well... they're personal
Also, you can not defame someone.

Otherwise there are no legal restrictions. This doesn't mean you won't get sued... it just means you will likely win the case.

 

[wacky941]

I guess the gist of it is to use discretion when posting.
Even though you can legally post something in the US providing the photo was taken of the subject out in the open public environment, discretion should be applied in the sense of asking yourself if this was a picture of you, would you want it posted on the Internet.
Very valid and useful responses and I do appreciate the feedback.
Thank you to all.

 

[willie_901]

I never ask that question ("asking yourself if this was a picture of you, would you want it posted on the Internet.") because those sorts of photos are inconsistent with my project goals. At the same time I rarely ask permission.

Candid photography is not new. What's new is the level of effort required to display them where they can be viewed by large numbers of people.

We all have different ideas of discretion. Personally I avoid photographing those who are homeless, obese, inebriated, injured, physically/mentally challenged or in embarrassing situations (picking their nose for example). Otherwise I just obey the law and work quickly (without hiding behind telephoto lenses).

 

[wacky941]

I came across this article a couple minutes ago and found it to be interesting that it is related to the topic of discussion.

NEWS
TEEN SUES PARENTS FOR SHARING CHILDHOOD PHOTOS ON FACEBOOK
Email
Facebook
Updated 2 hrs 45 mins ago
AUSTRIA (KTRK) -- An 18-year-old Austrian woman is suing her parents for posting embarrassing childhood photos of her on Facebook without her consent.

She claims that since 2009 they have been constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood.


Michael Rami, her lawyer, claims that her parents have posted 500 images of her on the social media site without her consent, and he believes she has a good chance of winning in court.

The Local reports the shared images include baby pictures of diaper changes, potty training and nude baby photos.

"They knew no shame and no limit -- and didn't care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot -- every stage was photographed and then made public," the 18-year-old said.

Despite her requests, they have refused to delete the photos, prompting her to sue them.

"I'm tired of not being taken seriously by my parents", she said.

Her father believes that since he took the photos, he has the right to publish the images.

The parents have 700 friends and their privacy settings are unknown.

WFTS reports that the case will be heard in November, and if the parents lose, this could have repercussions for Austrians who post countless images of their children on social media without their consent.

Austrian privacy laws when it comes to social media are not as strict as some other countries - for example in France, anyone convicted of publishing and distributing images of another person without their consent can face up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $45,000. This would apply to parents publishing images of their children, too.

The bolded print is the main part that got my attention.

 

[giganova]

The world has gone mad. I've given up street photography because more & more people scream at me, threaten me or tell me that it is "a crime" to make pictures of them. The Internet (Facebook, etc) has ruined it because now many people, and parents in particular, are horrified thinking that someone might abuse a picture of them. And I live in a country (US) that isn't even as crazy as some Europeans countries when it comes to privacy laws!

 

[mpaniagua]

The world has gone mad. I've given up street photography because more & more people scream at me, threaten me or tell me that it is "a crime" to make pictures of them. The Internet (Facebook, etc) has ruined it because now many people, and parents in particular, are horrified thinking that someone might abuse a picture of them. And I live in a country (US) that isn't even as crazy as some Europeans countries when it comes to privacy laws!

Problem is that, with the many social networks available (Facebook,Instagram, you name it), every photo can be posted on Internet and some people are not comfortable with that. Take it a step ahead, and some people don't like to heard this, there is all kind of ill people watching internet and dont everyone would like that their pictures would be available to them. With the ready availability of Internet and social networks, all kind of doors are open, some pretty, others not so pretty. That's what make people wary about street photography Also, some people like to keep their privacy, for instance, where they where at certain time or hour. When you take pictures of people on the street and publishing them on the web, you are disclosing they location at certain times, who they where keeping company, etc. Again, some people don't like this kind of info disclosed on the internet. Before the social networks, there was hardly any chances than a picture that was taken on the street been available to anyone, except the person that took the photo. Now, its practically available to the whole world.

Again, be respectful and be aware of people that seems wary or uncomfortable.

Like you said,yes, the world has gone crazy... and the way I look at it, it wont get better.

 

[farlymac]

When the day comes that I can't photograph a cow, I'll just throw all my cameras away.

It's a slippery slope when it comes to permissions, and "reasonable expectation of privacy". I guess that's why I do mostly landscape scenes. Though it seems that more and more, folks are having exceptions to just about anything being photographed, accusing the camera person of all kinds of malfeasance.

PF

 

[mpaniagua]

When the day comes that I can't photograph a cow, I'll just throw all my cameras away.

It's a slippery slope when it comes to permissions, and "reasonable expectation of privacy". I guess that's why I do mostly landscape scenes. Though it seems that more and more, folks are having exceptions to just about anything being photographed, accusing the camera person of all kinds of malfeasance.

PF

Couldnt agree more.

 

[Bob Michaels]

...... But there is also a more subjective dimension to this question. It concerns sensitivity to and respect for the possible feelings of our subjects. Opinions vary widely on where that particular line is. It's something we all must determine for ourselves.

My personal guideline is quite simple. I just ask myself if I would have any problems looking that person straight in the eye and handing them a print.

Good thing as I have had a few occasions where the world we live in turned out to be much smaller than we sometimes think.

 

[jsrockit]

My personal guideline is quite simple. I just ask myself if I would have any problems looking that person straight in the eye and handing them a print.

Good thing as I have had a few occasions where the world we live in turned out to be much smaller than we sometimes think.

Great advice IMO and yes, the world IS smaller than many believe.

 

[mpaniagua]

My personal guideline is quite simple. I just ask myself if I would have any problems looking that person straight in the eye and handing them a print.

Good thing as I have had a few occasions where the world we live in turned out to be much smaller than we sometimes think.

Great advise Bob. And yes, the world is a small place, now smaller than ever with Social Networks.

 

[Pioneer]

While I agree that you have some obligation to consider the feelings of others, I have to chuckle a bit about all this.

If I carry a camera on the street and photograph someone I am far more likely to be looked at oddly or approached, than if I did the exact same thing with an i-Phone.

Additionally, some of the best selling magazines in the world, at least in the US and Britain, contain all sorts of photographs of public figures in compromising situations, and no one thinks anything about it, except those who were photographed.

People photograph police, firemen, other emergency personnel, and all sorts of sordid and terrible things and then immediately post them on the internet. But the minute the camera points in their direction they go ballistic.

In my opinion it is hogwash. It is just another manifestation of the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Everyone loves to share the dirt about everyone else, but the moment they may become the dirt they get all holier than thou.

I DO NOT post photos of people in compromising situations. But I certainly have no qualms whatsoever about photographing people engaged in daily life.

EDIT - Of course, all that being said, I rarely post anything except for a few photos on this and a couple other forums. And, if approached nicely, I have been known to delete a photo if it was taken digitally. Since I shoot film a lot that isn't always possible.

 

[lukitas]

Ah, discretion in photography.

This is not meant to be a lesson in photographic manners, just an attempt to clarify how I navigate discretion and ethics.
As you can see from what I put on my blog and here on the gallery, I am quite shameless. I'll take a picture of anyone : friends, colleagues, strangers, beggars and drunks, right here in Brussels, capital of Belgium and Europe. The rapid rise of beggary makes me shudder; it would be dishonest, if I acted as if it wasn't there, and prudely didn't point my camera at it.

I do 'engage' with my subjects, were it but with the question mark in my eyebrows while I show them the camera. And when I've made the picture, I show it to them on the back of the camera. I give (small) prints to people I see regularly. At least the link to my blog. It pays to be as open and forward as possible, to be quite the opposite of discrete. I know, I've had a few run-ins with the authorities about a year ago. Since I make sure I cannot even be suspected of being surreptitious, shooting on the street generates a lot less friction.

When I am out, I am of course interested in the extremes, the things that twang my heart strings, the things that tickle my 'strange'-meter. And I refuse to unsee the underclass, the others, the beggars and drunkards and stinkards, they awaken in me the same fascination as all the 'normal' people.

Obviously, I think it is still quite feasible to shoot on the streets (and in the office), and I do not recoil from subjects some may find controversial, or even distasteful. I am not looking to find perverse and obscene situations, they present themselves to me. The only way I know how to do something about them is to show them. And I hope I do honour to the poor people I shoot, by giving them the same attention and respect I give to a portrait of my mother.

I do like to sound off sometimes.

And Bob nailed it.

 

[Addy101]

For Dutch photographers - a judge today ruled in the case of Rashid against De Volkskrant, it isn't published on Rechtspraak.nl yet. Note that the court doesn't object taking the picture or publishing it, it however considers the circumstances to be illegal. So, in the end, like all the advice in this very sensible thread - use your better judgement!