I have no idea how US law works or even in other country's. When you take the picture, regardless of what subject; the intent is there. I already seen posted here that you can photograph whatever in the US without fear. I sure would like to know if this is another hear say internet quote? My belief is the the US has good laws and they will stand up in court.
Here's my
interpretations from reading the Photo Attorney blog. To quote the Photo Attorney (Carolyn E. Wright) "
Take my advice; get professional help. "
There are two separate issues.
In the US the First amendment has prevailed. So far, state laws that limit taking a candid photograph have either been ruled unconstitutional, vetoed by a governor or repealed. As mentioned earlier, the legal limitations are: violation of a person's right to privacy, trespassing and a few locations protected by national security concerns.
Besides than obvious disgusting, blatant violations in pubic spaces, in New York State the right to privacy is legally defined as a situation where the subject(s) could reasonably assume they could disrobe in private. This seems to be a widely accepted definition.
Trespassing is simple. On private property no-trespassing signs limit photography. On private property where there is free public access you can legally photograph until someone tells you to stop. No one can legally take your camera, etc. nor can they touch you. They can instruct you to leave at once. They can instruct law enforcement to arrest you if you reuse to leave.
There may be un-resolved state laws limiting photography of agricultural properties. I don't remember how these were resolved. The definition of locations protected by Homeland Security law is somewhat ambiguous. In my experience it seems to be up to individual security officer.
In the US there are two types of usage – editorial and commercial.
Briefly, commercial usage means a person's rights of publicity are violated and only the photographer benefits financially from the usage. Rights of publicity involve voluntary vs. involuntary endorsement. A model release covers general or specific publicity endorsement and requires compensation for the subject(s).
Editorial usage is an all encompassing term for non-commercial usage. For instance, selling candid photography prints without model releases as works of art has never been legally ruled as commercial usage. To date, US courts have ruled the creators right to freedom of expression is more important than privacy concerns. The proliferation of internet photograph publishing has not yet affected this balance.
As long as a candid photograph was made legally, editorial usage is not restricted.
Intent becomes important because editorial usage does not mean slanderous or malicious usage is legal. These are not. Any malicious usage creates liability. Public figures have less legal protection than others.
Photographing without fear is much more complicated. People can physically attack you. You can legally defend yourself and you can press charges against the assailant(s). Private security officers can attempt to violate your rights. You can take legal action against them too. Even law enforcement officers can bully you. Very recently a policeman was filmed telling a driver that recording a routine traffic stop was illegal. It is not. However, interfering with a police investigation is a different matter.
