Street Photography Legal News

[Ash]

thanks for the info Jamie. I'm in swindon (big sigh!). My grandparents live in Lower Stanton so I been to chip-in-ham a few times. Oxford must be great on a day like today though!

 

[kully]

Basically, if the subject is in a public place, we can shoot what we like. The police (more accurately, security guards) and the public, however, do not always seem to understand this.

True, the sterotype of photographers being "dirty old men" and the red-tops don't help either.

That said, some lady took a photo of me when I was walking down the street in Oxford with my girlfriend - I have to admit being offended and had to stop myself going up to her and asking why she did it without asking (she ran away down the street straight after too).

 

[kshapero]

There are different sects within Orthodox Judaism. Members of the Satmar Hassidic sect are indeed forbidden by their religion to have their picture taken, since they take the 2nd commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image", quite literally. The guy who sued the photographer may have been a member of this (relatively small) sect. The people who run the NYC camera stores are certainly not.

i am a Chasidic, though not Satmar, I have never heard of this before. There is absolutely no prohibition to having one's photograph taken. Still there are people, I suppose, of any and all stripes, who do not want their picture taken. My advice to them is, "Stay at home. Keep your blinds down". As Dr Laura says, "Now go take on the day" (sic!🙂

 

[kshapero]

So does that mean members possess no state-issued driver's license or US-issued passport? Are they stuck in their NY ghettos for life?

Hogwash!!! No Jew of any type objects to having his picture on his driver's license. These are urban legends or maybe Amish or some Muslims object.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Basically, if the subject is in a public place, we can shoot what we like.

No. It's if the photographer is in a public place they can photograph anything, even if the subject is in a private place.

Think Madonna and the public footpaths crossing her land. A photographer on the footpath (a public place) can photograph Madonna in her garden (a private place).

 

[Kevin]

Hogwash!!! No Jew of any type objects to having his picture on his driver's license. These are urban legends or maybe Amish or some Muslims object.

Simply delving into the consequences of the graven image phobia.

 

[blakley]

red-tops? Translate?

 

[jamiewakeham]

Jon - OK, given. I seem to recall something about reasonable expectation of privacy, which Madonna couldn't expect when next to a public footpath, but could if she was inside her house? or something like that?

Kully - wasn't me, I promise!

Ash - I'm sure it is. Unfortunately I'm currently at work in Abingdon, about to do the 'pouring treacle at different temperatures' experiment with my Y7 class...

Jamie

 

[Doctor Zero]

I thought in the UK you were allowed to take pictures only of people in public places, ie. where they shouldn't expect privacy anyway. As far as I'm aware standing on the road and taking a picture into someone's living room would be breaking their privacy.

That is not all there is to it, however. You cannot then just use that picture to make your fortune, either by selling it on its own or by selling it to a company for advertisements - unless you have a model release form signed by the person whose picture you took.

Put it this way: think of whatever it is you hate the most. Now think someone takes your picture in the street - and the week after you see your face advertising whatever it is you dislike most. Hardly seems right, does it?

However - I am no legal expert. So don't quote me. Or don't sue me 😉 . As someone in my lab always says: "Expert? An 'ex' is a 'has-been' and a 'spurt' is a 'drip under pressure' ". Go figure...

Doctor Zero

 

[ch1]

Simply delving into the consequences of the graven image phobia.

I believe what kshapero was saying is that this "graven image" claim seems more in the realm of "urban myth" than reality. The fact that the plaintiff claimed his religion (or his interpretation of it) forbids such "graven images" may well have been nothing more that a self-serving assertion intended to butress his "case".

Obviously the Court rejected it!

 

[nksyoon]

I believe another key part of the judgement was that it re-confirmed that the sale of photos by the photographer and gallery did not amount to "commercial use" of the plaintiff's image. It would only be commercial if the image were used in an advert.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

To me, the rule of thumb is "expectation of privacy." However, lately I've decided to make my photographic intentions known to the subject instead of stalking and "hunting" images. It makes me feel a bit more legit...

In any case, if I'm out in the street and some people are inside a restaurant, but by a window, their expectation of privacy is pretty low (how can they have any if they're on display). Now, if they are away from the window... I will not take their photo. Same applies with people in gardens (unless they're peeking out). If I see a man sitting on a rocking chair in his porche, then, however, I'll ask for permission.

Every subject and context has its own circumstances to me. And I'd rather leave with a photo and leaving a good impression than steal an image and feel like I took a pie from a window.

In any case, thanks for the update on Street Photography! 🙂

 

[kully]

red-tops? Translate?

Whoops - I didn't mean those blokes in Star Trek that get killed every episode 😉


The "red-top"s such as the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Sun , Star are right-wing newspapers who like to blow everything up to ultra-panic levels (bloke takes photos in park = peadophile scandal in park or bloke kills someone and the police find a video games console in his house and they start a campaign to ban all videogames).

 

[T_om]

I believe another key part of the judgement was that it re-confirmed that the sale of photos by the photographer and gallery did not amount to "commercial use" of the plaintiff's image. It would only be commercial if the image were used in an advert.

This is a HUGE portion of the ruling, and is overlooked by most non-pros.

You would even be amazed at the number of professional photographers that have no clue as to exactly what their usage rights are.

Tom

 

[bmattock]

This seems like a good time to mention once more that there is a good book available on the subject:

"Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert P. Krages, Esq.

It is available on Amazon and it costs something like $13 USD. It has some great reviews that you can read there as well. I have the book and can recommend it whole-heartedly.

If you're an amateur, it is good to have - if you're a pro, I'd consider it essential. And of course, if you're a pro, it's a tax deduction. Hehehehe.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kshapero]

I believe what kshapero was saying is that this "graven image" claim seems more in the realm of "urban myth" than reality. The fact that the plaintiff claimed his religion (or his interpretation of it) forbids such "graven images" may well have been nothing more that a self-serving assertion intended to butress his "case".

Obviously the Court rejected it!

I think that you have an accurate view of the matter.

 

[hoot]

Hogwash!!! No Jew of any type objects to having his picture on his driver's license. These are urban legends or maybe Amish or some Muslims object.

Whoa, let me clear something up. First of all, I have no idea what it's like in the USA in that regard, and am willing to defer to kshapero as the authority on the matter.

However, this April, I was trying to do some street photography in Me'ah She'arim (an ultra-Orthodox ghetto in Jerusalem) and noticed that many people actually ran away and hid their faces when they saw me approaching with a camera. One man even went so far as to ask me to stop photographing in that neighborhood. I asked him why, and he clearly explained what I originally wrote in this thread.

What he said made sense to me, as I had seen absolutely no photographs on the numerous billboards or in the shops (as opposed to Haredi neighborhoods, where photos of the Lubavich Rebbe are ubiquitous). Also, I just googled for photos of Rebbe Moses Teitelbaum, the recently-deceased head of the Satmar sect, and could not find one single photo of the man that was evidently taken with his consent.

Please note that the Satmar sect is relatively tiny, so this tidbit of information may have escaped your attention. I, too, wasn't aware of it until just a few weeks ago.

 

[Kevin]

Maybe you are right, Ronnie, but instead of simply seeking a permanent injunction, the plaintiff also sued for accounting and money damages, compensatory damages as well as exemplary damages.

This money-motive might have been his attorney's idea. Still it makes me question the plaintiff's religious authenticity. Wouldn't you say so?

He could have easily explained the situation to his community. I am sure they would have understood his graven misfortune.

 

[kshapero]

Well I learn something everyday. There is a concept among Chassidim call tznius which means modesty. Could be the guys you encountered in Meir Sherim take that princple to the "enth" degree.

 

[ch1]

I finally clicked on the link to the actual court decision.

For crying out loud - it was a Summary Judgement in favor of the named defendants!

That means that the complaintant/plaintiff had no case to begin with!

Why the heck are you arguing about this?

You're beating a dead horse here and, quite frankly, bordering on turniing this thread ugly

Read the drift - it won't be long if you don't stop now.

Rejoice, street photograpy remains protected in NYC!