Photographers Rights

[pmadis01]

Hello, my name is Pete and I'm a 2nd year Student at the University of Guelph Humber studying Media Studies and specializing in Creative photography. (www.guelphhumber.ca) I'm writing a paper for my Subcultures Class and figured i would tap into the large sample of photographers that I have access to as being a member of this site.

My question to you is this:

It is perfectly legal to go to a park and take pictures of everyone in that public space, even children without their parents permission. It is a public space and therefore they should not have an expectation of privacy. But in today's society even knowing that I am allowed by the law to do so I still feel that when I enter a public space with a camera that I'm not wanted there. Just because I am a young man with a camera I feel as though i am labeled as a sexual preditor. I feel very uncomfortable shooting in an area where children are around. I was talking with one of my photography teachers at my university and he said that he used to go to parks and with the parents permission take photo's of children playing. Now he advoids doing so because he feels very uncomfortable with a camera in a public park with children around.

What are your thoughts on Shooting in a public place where children are present. Have you ever felt awkward having a camera in this public place? Felt like people didn't want you there?

Also have you ever had any problem in any public space? Ever been asked to turn over your images? (which you never have to do unless they have a court order, also you never have provide ID unless a policce officer asks for it, mall security gaurds don't count)

your comments won't be used in the paper, but rather give me an idea of the opinions of the photographic community

I apprecaite any input.

Thanks

 

[viridian]

I know what you mean because I have been stopped for photographing a building downtown Chicago. I thought it was crazy, but I was understanding because it was post 9-11.

 

[pmadis01]

The law says that we are able to keep photographing in the area even after being asked to leave and those photo's would not be illegaly obtained. (we would then be tresspassing btu the images would be legal) But just becasue that is the law doesn't mean that we can't be nice and just leave the area when asked to. I would and just come back later, lol

 

[Kash]

I really don't feel like I'm unwanted in a public space with a camera. Though of course, I don't go alone to the park with my camera, that's just creepy. If I have my camera at the park or other public recreational space, I'm with at least one other person, so it doesn't look as weird.

 

[Screwball6986]

Well actually nobody can stop you from taking any pictures in a public place I do a lot of aircraft spotting at major airports and i have been interrogated, handcuffed and many other things but I have a "Photographers rights, little pamplet" that shows that it is perfectly legal, some people can seem weirded out with you taking pictures of them, but in all reality, they have no say in the matter and i could never get in trouble for it.

 

[pmadis01]

That's what I'm talking about though. If you were in the space by yourself you see it as weird and creepy. This is what our society is telling us. If you were a women people would have a very different view of you being alone in a park with a camera

 

[pmadis01]

Well actually nobody can stop you from taking any pictures in a public place I do a lot of aircraft spotting at major airports and i have been interrogated, handcuffed and many other things but I have a "Photographers rights, little pamplet" that shows that it is perfectly legal, some people can seem weirded out with you taking pictures of them, but in all reality, they have no say in the matter and i could never get in trouble for it.

Your totally right, no one can stop you from taking photo's unless it's private property. you could be asked to leave the airport but could always come back at a later date when different people were on shift right.

 

[TheCustomer99]

It's nothing more than a violation of a cultural norm. It's no different than getting into an elevator and facing everyone instead of the door. It gives everyone an uneasy feeling but does no harm. If I were a parent though, I'd probably feel strange if someone was in the park taking a picture of my kids though.

 

[Screwball6986]

right usually to be safe I would call the airport authority and let them know, I do it so often in IND that they have given me a SIDA badge and ramp priveledges and i take shots for them too now since the new midfield terminal is under construction. Before that I would just go to a diff spot honestly, the same cop has came out 4-5 times and he walks up and just chats with me now, i ever talked him into buying a camera lol, its always funny listening to the aviation scanner and hearing a report of a guy holding "what appears to be some sort of white shoulder held device on the perimeter fence.

 

[cazabam]

There was an advert on our local radio yesterday that basically said "If you see somebody taking pictures in a public place, it might be fine. However, he might be a paedophile or a terrorist! Don't take that chance, call this number to be sure." I was quite literally white with rage at that point. Scaremongering and demonisation of people who partake in a particular hobby is despicable.

I often wonder how many of the people who complain about their privacy being violated or whatever read magazines like Heat, where paparazzi basically invade the privacy of various public figures for their viewing pleasure? Most of them, I would imagine. Everybody loves seeing pictures (either sleazy paparazzi style or artistic) but hypocritically penalise those who take the pictures in public.

Can you tell it's a pet peeve of mine?

 

[dtownley1]

this issue also comes down to where you live. It seems that in America, things are different there. In Melbourne, I've never experienced such things, and while I was a student in 1st and 2nd year photography, I was often walking around the city with a camera. Since it's a small city, it was common to see half a dozen other photography students as well with cameras. Most people are quite used to it.

Most people are very understanding about it here - and I don't think security issues even enter peoples' minds. If there's ever any conflict, it's because the subject may be having a bad day and not want their photo taken without their permission. ...but that's where hip-shots come in, heheh.

 

[MrJoshua]

I love taking photos, but usually of inanimate objects and people I know at parties etc.

I took offence last summer when I was out on a picnic with my ex girlfriend... We were down by the river at a stately home, enjoying the surroundings and each other .
Some guy walked by with a BIG camera (huge telephoto lens) and continued off down the path by the river for a distance before stopping, turning round, kneeling down and pointing his camera towards us. He started snapping pictures of us together (which I can imagine was quite a nice shot), however I felt it was an invasion of our privacy, so gave him the bird until he wandered off.

 

[moss918]

There was an advert on our local radio yesterday that basically said "If you see somebody taking pictures in a public place, it might be fine. However, he might be a paedophile or a terrorist! Don't take that chance, call this number to be sure." I was quite literally white with rage at that point. Scaremongering and demonisation of people who partake in a particular hobby is despicable.

I often wonder how many of the people who complain about their privacy being violated or whatever read magazines like Heat, where paparazzi basically invade the privacy of various public figures for their viewing pleasure? Most of them, I would imagine. Everybody loves seeing pictures (either sleazy paparazzi style or artistic) but hypocritically penalise those who take the pictures in public.

Can you tell it's a pet peeve of mine?

And rightly so Cazabam!

That is despicable. Sure it may be a pervert but scare tactics like this also enrage me. If someone is in a park and taking pics of your kids then go and talk to them, ask to see the pics or to buy prints etc. There are other ways of dealing with things than instantly deciding that all photographers are pervs. I would say that any legitimate photographer with any sense would ask the parents accompanying the children before taking any photos and would definitely comply if they wanted to see what you've been shooting.

Ads like the one mentioned above are only going to worry people. If I see someone coming over to me while I'm out shooting I have no problem having a chat with them, on the other hand if someone is shouting abuse or looking instantly angry I'm gonna run for fear of them damaging my equipment (Or, as an afterthought, maybe me). Then, by running away, I'm going to look like a pervert just because someone reacted badly to an innocent photographer.

I think people (Photographers and the general public) simply need to learn how to talk without being afraid. If the photographer mentioned by MrJoshua above wasn't such a pansy he may have made a sale on the pic he took simply by asking permission.

 

[ToddG]

People who feel they can defy social norms on the basis of legal justification are doomed to be treated as outcasts. If you are doing something to/around people that annoys them, you're being annoying. Period.

Taking photos of people who don't want their photo taken -- or of children whose parents don't want their photo taken -- is no better than screaming profanities at them. Legal or not, it's wrong and society as a rule doesn't accept it. MrJoshua's story was a good case in point.

Fifteen years ago, I used to go to local parks and take pictures of the kids because little kids playing on big brightly colored jungle gym sets really does make for some good photos. Now, I wouldn't even consider it unless my wife was with me. And even then, I'd be prepared to have parents come up and ask me what we're doing, etc.

On the grand universal scale, "fear of pedophiles stealing my children" > "oh what a nice picture!"

 

[Screwball6986]

Well from a sociological standpoint all a photographer in a public place is so called "violating" is a social "folkway" which is really no big deal, I f people want to say something then let them, I am not really concerned with Idiot #1 who doesn't know apparently what can or cannot be done, When i do take photos in public I am usually at least semi-well dressed as to not look the part of some sort of deviant. If someone asks me what im doing I tell them straight up and I usually give them a card, and ask them if they would like copies, that usually settles ones situation, although i have only had one person take me up on it, what a nightmare that was logistically. Regardless if someone is out taking pictures, its no big deal, if you don't like it then leave, he/she has just as much a right to that space as you do.

 

[PowerBookG4]

are the rules the same for video.. does anybody know?

 

[Screwball6986]

In a public place under "normal" circumstances, not for commercial use I think they differ a bit but not much

 

[CreativeGuy]

I think some may confuse the right to shoot, and the right to actually use those photos for commercial purposes.

To be clear, you have every right to shoot anything you want when in public (or no reasonable expectation of privacy is present). However, that's where your rights stop. If you expect to use that photo of the cute kid in the park on the cover of a brochure for a bank, be prepared for the possibility of getting sued along with the bank.

It really is best to get a model release right at the time of shooting. And as someone already stated, offer to send copies... it makes getting the model release easier.

 

[moss918]

If I remember correctly you only need the model release if you intend to use it as a front cover/promotional poster etc. But if you're releasing, for example, a book then the photo's within do not need one. Anyone know any more about this?

 

[Odin_aa]

Moss, the model release (At least in the USA) is needed if using the image for any form of advertisement...if its simply being put in a magazine/newspaper as something of interest/news then you are right no model release is needed legally.