Photographers Rights

[moss918]

That's what I'm thinking. The front cover of a book could be seen as promotional and would therefore require a release, unlike the rest of the book.

 

[ToddG]

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

Actually, I think the confusion is between those people talking about what the law says they can do, and the people talking about what is accepted behavior in a sociological sense.

I could go to a park and walk up to little kids shouting, "You're ugly and stupid!" It's legal. But that doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior.

 

[Odin_aa]

Todd, while your correct in what your saying...

If the act is not illegal, then it is up to the individual to determine if they wish to do it. Some people may consider a photograph taken by someone to be a great piece of art and a statement on society. Others will look at the same photograph and be appauled that someone took a photo of 'that poor homeless person'. The act of taking the photograph is not illegal, nor is publishing the photograph.

It is now legal in some states for people to marry the same sex, that does not mean that everyone has to run out and enter a same sex marriage. There are many issues that are 'legal' that people choose not to do for their own reasons, not everyone will agree with the choices that others make but it does not make them wrong for doing it.

 

[Odin_aa]

That's what I'm thinking. The front cover of a book could be seen as promotional and would therefore require a release, unlike the rest of the book.

Not true, at least here in the states other wise how would those tabloids print photographs of the well known people and stay in business? It really depends on what that front page is, is it a 'news story' ...

With these sort of things, it is always better to obtain a release if you think you need one. And to seek real legal advise if unsure and you do not have one.

 

[ToddG]

The act of taking the photograph is not illegal, nor is publishing the photograph.

No argument whatsoever. The OP said:

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.

So the thread (at least when it started ) wasn't about legalities. The question asked was, have you ever been made to feel uncomfortable because you were in a public place with a camera? In particular, the example of bringing a camera to a playground was mentioned.

I often take photos at pistol competitions (example). I always try to ask folks if they mind having their picture taken, even if I have press credentials. It's just courtesy.

 

[pmadis01]

To be clear, you have every right to shoot anything you want when in public (or no reasonable expectation of privacy is present).

Actually in public there are certian expectations of privacy and some rules apply. You can't capture anything that comments about someone character for example you can't shoot a women off in the corner reading a bottle in a drugstore which is herpes medication. Because she is in a store and off in a corner she has a certian amount of expected privacy. Also in public you can't use a telephoto lens of sorts to capture an image of people where they think that they are alone.

This thread has created some great discussion. I'm pleased

 

[BIG D 04]

Personally I think you should always ask people if it's acceptable to take pictures or if you have taken them, is it aright to keep them. I just think it's good manners.

So although you may have very legal right to do I think you should show a bit of respect and at least inform the person what you plan on doing with the photo eg. School/Uni/College Work, Websites, Book or even just Art.

I hate been caught on Camera whether by a Photographer or a Video Camera for like News Stories it annoys me immensely where people just assume because your doing your Shopping it's aright to take pictures because it's a public place.

Thats why I have a degree of sympathy for Celebrities

 

[Odin_aa]

Actually in public there are certian expectations of privacy and some rules apply. You can't capture anything that comments about someone character for example you can't shoot a women off in the corner reading a bottle in a drugstore which is herpes medication. Because she is in a store and off in a corner she has a certian amount of expected privacy. Also in public you can't use a telephoto lens of sorts to capture an image of people where they think that they are alone.

This thread has created some great discussion. I'm pleased

Online forums are really not a good place to discuss this simply due to the difference in laws across country/state/providence boundaries. For instance the above may be true in Canada, however in the US as long as you are standing on public property you can take whatever image you like with any lens you like.

So the thread (at least when it started ) wasn't about legalities. The question asked was, have you ever been made to feel uncomfortable because you were in a public place with a camera? In particular, the example of bringing a camera to a playground was mentioned.

I often take photos at pistol competitions (example). I always try to ask folks if they mind having their picture taken, even if I have press credentials. It's just courtesy

I understand, you were simply stating your view. While I agree that asking is the polite thing, as is not taking photographs if asked not too...it does not mean you cannot. As you mention, and all I meant to interject is there is a difference.

 

[CreativeGuy]

You can't capture anything that comments about someone character for example you can't shoot a women off in the corner reading a bottle in a drugstore which is herpes medication. Because she is in a store and off in a corner she has a certian amount of expected privacy.

Correct, because she's inside a store means she's not out in public.

Also in public you can't use a telephoto lens of sorts to capture an image of people where they think that they are alone.

Actually you can do exactly that. IF they are out in public and don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now if they were sitting in their backyard and you were up in a tree 3 houses down... well yeah, then you couldn't do it. Nor could you use that zoom lens to photograph them through their bedroom window. But if, let's say, they were in a park, or even sitting behind a building, you could photograph them.

Here's an interesting article/PDF about the subject for anyone who is interested.

Digital photography has brought this "issue" to the forefront the last few years, as everyone with a spare buck or two is grabbing a digital camera (or their cell phone) and snapping pics everywhere.

 

[HKphotographer]

I agree that if though it's legal, you should obtain one's consent before taking a photograph of him or her. But what about I'm autistic and I'm a photographer? You can't expect me to walk up and communicate with people, right?

 

[moss918]

I think the law would still be the same if you intended to use the images for commercial use. You could always have someone do the talking for you, nice professional touch aswell.

 

[CreativeGuy]

This has been an interesting discussion on this topic. Clearly, the old rule "when in doubt..." comes into play. If you **think** you might use the images commercially, you're just better off getting a model release.

 

[pmadis01]

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.

This is a grey area (as with most things in this topic) it was pretty low of the photographer but he was technically in the right wasn't he? If the couple was in a field or sitting on a bench then it would be no problem. If the couple was in a place where they have "an expected right to privacy" then the photographer was not allowed to take those photo's.

If you wanted him to stop all you can do is walk over and ask him to stop. But any images that were taken before you as him to stop were obtained legally (underhandedly but legally). It's never a good idea to hide and take photo's with a telephoto lens, you look much more suspect then. If your going to take pictures in a public place don't hide that fact

Thanks for the story MrJoshua

 

[pmadis01]

Correct, because she's inside a store means she's not out in public.

Actually you can do exactly that. IF they are out in public and don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now if they were sitting in their backyard and you were up in a tree 3 houses down... well yeah, then you couldn't do it. Nor could you use that zoom lens to photograph them through their bedroom window. But if, let's say, they were in a park, or even sitting behind a building, you could photograph them.

Here's an interesting article/PDF about the subject for anyone who is interested.

Digital photography has brought this "issue" to the forefront the last few years, as everyone with a spare buck or two is grabbing a digital camera (or their cell phone) and snapping pics everywhere.

Your right. Your points explain what I was trying to say. I meant that you couldn't use a telephoto lens to zoom in to an area where you would not be able to obtain images without one. (like your example of shooting into a backyard).

As for the drugstore example, again your correct and thanks for correcting my bad example. I just ment that you could not take an image of someone in a compromising situation when they have an expected right to privacy.

 

[Nevermore]

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.

Wholeheartedly agree.