Photographer sued for portrait

[Matthew]

I hadn't heard that about the monk's "hoodies". That's good...are hoodies still banned? What was the name of the mall, Bluewater?

I went to film school in London and we were told that the basic position in the UK in regards to releases for film in public streets whether for a documentary or narrative piece was that if you ask someone to do something for you, or make them do something out of the ordinary, then you need to release them.

The thing in all this is that I believe it to be good practice to engage your subjects, if only briefly, and to ask permission if in doubt as to whether they object to being photographed, but I don't think you should be legally required to do so. I frankly think the photos in question, while attractive, are somewhat gimmicky. I'm not a fan of hip shots either. Being sneaky while taking photos is bad form.

Bringing this back to rangefinders: it's one of the virtues of the rangefinder camera that you have to be reasonably close to your subject to get a good shot.

 

[TPPhotog]

.... I have little sympathy for the person who objects and threatens litigation because their picture is on your Flickr site without consent. But on the cover of People or the local daily newspaper? I'd say they have a legitimate beef about your publishing their photo without consent.

From experience I have never had anyone object to their picture appearing in the local paper either by consent or otherwise. Usually the problem is trying to keep them out of the shots and I used to make some nice royalties from people asking the paper for a copy.