Will you please delete that!

[cbass]

Kill 'em with kindness, Bill....kill 'em with kindness. 😀

BTW, there is an excellent New York City-based street photographer named Helen Levitt who made amazing candid photgraphs of children and adults at work and play. Her work is very good, and from the looks of some of her photos she didn't try to stay discreet in all situations. Food for thought....

 

[bmattock]

I concur with Bill as well.
Although I would attempt the clandestine route more oft than not.

If that is what works for the photograph I want, fine. Otherwise, I try not to compromise the shot to avoid being seen.

The "rules" as I understand them for Canucks are quite similar to the U.S.:
If you are in a public space and you are in "public" you forfeit your rights to "privacy" when it comes to photography (within reason of course - i.e. the guy that was recently arrested here in Toronto for "sneaking" up skirt photos of young girls using his camera phone - mind you, he was in a grocery store so he wasn't "in public" per se).

In the USA, the courts have held (and quite properly, I believe) that a person has the right to be 'private' under their skirt, if they are in public or not. So 'upskirts' as they are called are illegal anywhere in public as far as I know. Same for bathrooms - even public ones - the public has a right to expectation of privacy there.

This was not always the case - in the 1950's, police used to monitor public bathrooms through one-way mirrors to catch 'perverts' who did what Michael George did.

If you are on public land (i.e. sidewalk) you can photograph buildings etc. even if security guards come out and tell you that you cannot.

The law here in the USA is quite murky on that now. Some buildings MAY be protected from photography, but there are no hard and fast rules. Some have been arrested for taking photographs of tall buildings in cities since 9/11 by the federal government, and have generally not been heard from again. Some architects are now trying to enforce copyrights on the 'image' of the building they designed.

If you are on public land you CANNOT photograph INTO buildings (i.e. private property) without consent.

Not sure on that.

I prefer to stick to the public land and shoot as I see fit - most people look at the camera around my neck or in my bag (my M's) and figure I'm a goofy asian tourist anyway 😀
Dave

In the USA, some national parks, forests, and monuments require a permit to be applied for and issued before commercial photography can be done - public or not. However, usually no restrictions on non-commercial photography that I'm aware of.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[George S.]

Here's my understanding of the rules ref: public places. ( I'm not talking about post 9/11 'criminal' laws, just civil laws and penalties)

If you are taking either general or specific ( accident scenes) shots of public areas and include strangers, you can do that without asking them for releases, if the shot is deemed 'newsworthy' . If you see an interesting person and take their photo, and they are recognizable, (and they, in effect, become the focal point instead of the surroundings), and you ever intend to get compensation or you do get compensation for the shot (paid for it in some way) then you better have gotten a model release. Most newspapers and magazines will ask to see a copy of the release before accepting a photo if they deem one should have been gotten.

And the rules for "public figures" are slightly different. That's what allows a hundred papparazzi to follow Jennifer Aniston outside the Starbucks, snap her photo and sell it to the tabloids without a model release.

 

[fgianni]

I mean no disrespect, but I suspect that now the lady you dealt with is satisfied that she defended her 'right' not to be photographed - she'll do it again, and with the solid belief that she is in the right.

As much as it pains me to admit it 😉 , I am 110% with you on this one.

 

[bmattock]

If you are taking either general or specific ( accident scenes) shots of public areas and include strangers, you can do that without asking them for releases, if the shot is deemed 'newsworthy'.

I believe your understanding is flawed, no offense intended.

IANAL, but I've done a lot of research into this field. This applies to the USA only:

You can take any kind of photographs you wish in public areas, of anything and anyone you wish. A 'model release' is a specific grant of right to use the photos for a specific purpose, not permission to photograph.

What I think you might be confusing is when a 'model release' is required - and that is if you wish to use a resulting image for commercial purposes. And 'commercial purposes' is a bit fuzzy. Most agree that news reporting does not require a release. Some agree that books do not require a release. Almost no one agrees that a billboard advertisement does not require a release. Some courts have drawn the line in one place, some in another.

Again - a 'release' is to surrender rights - usually for compensation. Since no one has a 'right' to prevent their photo being taken in public, no one needs a release to take photos. It is what you DO WITH THE PHOTOS that matters.

If you see an interesting person and take their photo, and they are recognizable, (and they, in effect, become the focal point instead of the surroundings), and you ever intend to get compensation or you do get compensation for the shot (paid for it in some way) then you better have gotten a model release.

Probably. It is definitely better to have one than not if you intend to make money on the photograph. There is an author who was the center of a controversy lately because he took photos of people as they walked under some construction material and then put the photos in a book - they were recognizable - one man sued. I don't recall the outcome.

Most newspapers and magazines will ask to see a copy of the release before accepting a photo if they deem one should have been gotten.

Not certain. Practice varies.

And the rules for "public figures" are slightly different. That's what allows a hundred papparazzi to follow Jennifer Aniston outside the Starbucks, snap her photo and sell it to the tabloids without a model release.

The rule is that you can't make money on an image unless you have obtained the right to do so - that's what a model release is for. And you can't hold a recognizable person up to public ridicule by publishing their photograph in an unflattering or embarrassing way. A public figure is one who by the nature of their business is a 'public person'. Even public figures are entitled to privacy in the same conditions that the rest of us would be entitled to privacy - such as in the bathroom or what have you. They just are not generally held to own the rights to their image anymore - they have 'put it out there' freely, so to speak.

 

[fgianni]

In the UK, if I remeber correctly, if the image is just for editorial purpose (news or a book) AND is not used to illustrate controversial issues, AND the person is not ridiculed, then you don't need a release, in any other case you do.

Of course I am not a layer so I might be wrong on this one.

But to take the picture in a public place you don't need permission from anyone.

 

[fgianni]

But to take the picture in a public place you don't need permission from anyone.

Of course with the witch-hunt currently going on against alleged paedophiles in the UK, taking a picture where a child is within half a mile from you can lead to you being arrested, your equipment being confiscated, and of course everything given back to you after a couple of months with a simple "sorry we got it wrong".

 

[fraley]

You should have taken a shot of her butt as she walked away.

Thanks Rover! I'm laughing out loud even though I'm sick as a dog 😛

 

[George S.]

I believe your understanding is flawed, no offense intended.

The rule is that you can't make money on an image unless you have obtained the right to do so - that's what a model release is for. And you can't hold a recognizable person up to public ridicule by publishing their photograph in an unflattering or embarrassing way. A public figure is one who by the nature of their business is a 'public person'. Even public figures are entitled to privacy in the same conditions that the rest of us would be entitled to privacy - such as in the bathroom or what have you. They just are not generally held to own the rights to their image anymore - they have 'put it out there' freely, so to speak.

Please reread my post, we're saying exactly the same. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but we agree.


You can make money off of it without a release IF the person is a 'celebrity'. Here's where the law is open to some interpretation. Since we're talking about civil law and not criminal, the issue is not cut and dried. You have to sue to get an injunction and/or damages assessed, there's no police to call, and it's impossible to prove one was harmed by merely being publicised, something all celebrities are trying to do on a daily basis anyway. As long as it doesn't hurt the person's reputation or livelihood, you can take the shot and sell it. There's no way the hundreds ()literally) of papparazzi that follow stars arounf L.A. amnd New York all get releases for the shots that appear in the magazines and newspapers. I think they get around the release because the person, is in the public domain, so to speak. Of course, I agree with you that it wouldn't extend to a bathroom shot or the like.
__________________

 

[bmattock]

Please reread my post, we're saying exactly the same. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but we agree.

Glad to hear it. I read this:

If you are taking either general or specific ( accident scenes) shots of public areas and include strangers, you can do that without asking them for releases, if the shot is deemed 'newsworthy'.

I read it literally as you wrote it, meaning that you can "take" photos without a release, "if etc. If you mean 'sell' in place of 'take', then yes, we agree.

If you see an interesting person and take their photo, and they are recognizable, (and they, in effect, become the focal point instead of the surroundings), and you ever intend to get compensation or you do get compensation for the shot (paid for it in some way) then you better have gotten a model release.

News photogs get 'paid' for photos they take - no model release. If you mean 'get paid for commercial use' of the photograph, then again, we agree.

You can make money off of it without a release IF the person is a 'celebrity'.

"Public person." Celebrity implies stardom in a specific genre, the theatre or film unless otherwise stated - "a religious celebrity." A 'public person' could also be a well-known political leader, elected official, police officer on duty, even a minister. Subject to interpretation by the courts, of course.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[vincentbenoit]

[snip] I don't like to leave anyone with the concept in their punkin haids that they have any kind of right to demand that their photograph not be taken, or that they have the right to tell YOU what to do with your camera & photographs. [snip] And while I respect privacy rights (and I am a stickler about my own), appearing in public is not protected, and if you go out, you are liable to be photographed. [snip] I consider it a mission to not let anyone who accosts me get away with the notion that they have any kind of 'right' to stop me taking their photo or demanding to know what use I will put it to, or what I'm doing thereabouts.

Bill, you're my hero!
Cheers
Vincent

 

[Skinny McGee]

Here she is in all her Glory.

Here she is in all her Glory.

The funny thing is she smiled for the picture 😉

 

[dcsang]

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!
After all of that you got her smiling!! 🙂

Way to go!!

Cheers
Dave

 

[Trius]

If you are on public land you CANNOT photograph INTO buildings (i.e. private property) without consent.
Dave

Dave: So if I am on the public sidewalk in front of a building that is basically all glass (e.g. BCE Place, 10 Front W), I can't take a picture of it?

How else do I document my trip to the Hockey Hall of Fame? 😀

Earl

 

[dcsang]

Dave: So if I am on the public sidewalk in front of a building that is basically all glass (e.g. BCE Place, 10 Front W), I can't take a picture of it?

How else do I document my trip to the Hockey Hall of Fame? 😀

Earl

heh.. 🙂 I think they'll allow video cameras though.. go figure 😉

I'm guessing that a building such as that won't care too much but if someone brings you up on charges for, say, shooting through an apartment window to get a buxom redhead in the act of disrobing, then it's a different story 🙂

Dave

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Perhaps it is a subconscious response to the fact that we ARE the most surveilled nation in history - we are constantly being photographed everywhere we go, by private businesses as well as government agencies.

I read recently that there are more CCTV cameras in each London borough than in the whole of New York City.

There are 25 or so London boroughs.

And it is estimated that a person is photographed typically 200 times a day.

 

[raid]

I am going to try out street photography with my newly acquired Horizon 202 panorama camera. This should be fun and also it will not frighten off people since few will realize how wide the coverage of the camera lens is. Maybe use some ASA3200 film in it for night scenes (Christmas season ... Santa Calus ... Ho Ho Ho) and also some challenging Velvia slide film for scenics. No clue yet what to do with the negatives and slide film.

 

[RML]

Exactly for those situations where I get confronted in a less than friendly or open-minded manner I drew up a little note for the 'plainer to read, giving me a chance to split if I want to. 😛 I got the idea some time ago from a post here on RFF actually. I published the note on my blog ( http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/2005/12/shy-shooter.html ). If you use it, you might have to adjust it to suit your locality.

 

[Theo-Prof]

FWIW, I do the same thing when I leave Target or Walmart or CompUSA and the security guards want to see inside my bag or want to examine my register receipt. I just say "No, thank you!" and walk out of the store. . . .
I'm not showing them anything, because I did not steal anything and they have no legal right to search what is now my property.

Bill Mattocks

This really gets under my skin too.

Kevin

 

[peterc]

FWIW, I do the same thing when I leave Target or Walmart or CompUSA and the security guards want to see inside my bag or want to examine my register receipt.

Good one Bill.
I once managed to turn the search request into a free (well, it wasted 5 minutes of my time) DVD at a Futureshop.
After I went through the checkout the security person, who'd watched the entire transaction, demanded to see my receipt and search my bags. I pointed out that she'd seen the clerk put the items in the bags so a search wasn't really necessary. No, a search was required. So I turned around, went back to the checkout and demanded a full refund. The manager was called and when I explained that I didn't like the way they treated their customers, wanted a refund (I had about $300 worth of goods) and would shop elsewhere from now on, I was offered my choice of DVD (up to $40) for my trouble.
I really enjoy my copy of Dilbert - The Complete Series.

Peter