legal problem on street photography

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A very good french friend of mine when I asked him about street photography in France which supposed to have stricter privacy laws than the UK, just replied: "it is very easy in France, you just do what you want to do until someone compalins or a gendarme wags his finger at you. If you continue after that then you are in a lot of trouble!"

 

Unbelievable. Pragmatic, common sense policing. Whatever next?

 

LouisB

[earleygallery]

The world was a different place back in HCB's day.

 

Briefly, the law - which differs by country of course - is that it is OK to take photos of people in public. Add in some commonsense, the obvious sensitive subjects to generally avoid, and the fact that there will always be someone who thinks they know the law and may try to stop you - plenty of cases of that posted on this forum already.

 

If you later publish an image, on your website say, or as part of an exhibition, said subject could ask you to remove their image, or would have to then take civil action against you for damages - what is the chance of that ever happening?

 

It would be a different matter if you found your face on a worldwide advertising campaign and plastered over billboards and the back of buses! But even then, I expect the photo would have to have been taken in a country where privacy laws exist (I'm no legal expert).

 

Summary, shoot, publish and be damned!

 

 

So how does this apply to photographs of people taken in public/street photography, then you 'publish' them on a website?

 

All the great photographers of the past such as HCB seem to have gone about taking photos without hassle or harassment. And profit from publications/books without a big fuss. And I doubt he went about walking up to everyone he photographed after the fact with a copyright/release statement. If he did, imagine the responses.. er, whats in it for me, what my cut?

 

Literally millions of images are taken everyday and posted on websites, published in books and sold. Is it a case of take it, publish it and see if someone comes across their image and actually takes the time to trace the photographer and takes legal action.

 

then theres the topic of international law. what happens if a photographer takes an image of someone in country X and sells his coffee book of images internationally?

[Philippe D.]

Briefly, the law - which differs by country of course

Or differs even from States, or Cities as well...

In Alabama i.a., you can't drive a car bare foot or with a blindfold. It's forbidden !

Or if you scatter salt on the railway tracks, you may be sentenced to death !

 

So who knows what about taking photography of a women with a string only on the street.

[Guest darkstar2004]

Or differs even from States, or Cities as well...

In Alabama i.a., you can't drive a car bare foot or with a blindfold. It's forbidden !

Or if you scatter salt on the railway tracks, you may be sentenced to death !

 

So who knows what about taking photography of a women with a string only on the street.

 

Don't try to photograph at a U.S. federal courthouse - the security guards will be on you in a flash, demanding that you leave. I had an experience like this pre-9/11 and as a result have steered clear of the federal palaces ever since. It's a shame too, as they are full of potentially good images.

 

I have yet to have anyone that I am photographing on the street object - although I have had a couple of instances of other people objecting or asking questions.

 

Yesterday I was photographing peope at our Strawberry Shortcake Festival. One woman - whom I was not photographing - asked if I was with the newspaper. I said I was not and then she pointedly asked, "So... do you know these people you are taking pictures of?? " (as if were any of her business)

 

I patiently and politely explained to her that I am a fine art imagemaker who is trying to learn about documentary photography and that I'm in the process of honing those skills, which are a very different skill set from the type of work I normally do.

 

This explanation apparently satisfied this busybody woman that I am not some sort of pervert or criminal; she left me to my devices after that.

 

Whatever, lady...

 

With the excetion of her minor annoyance, I had a very nice couple of hours of making images and am looking forward to getting my film developed to see the results.

[dcoombs]

...Yesterday I was photographing peope at our Strawberry Shortcake Festival. One woman - whom I was not photographing - asked if I was with the newspaper. I said I was not and then she pointedly asked, "So... do you know these people you are taking pictures of?? " (as if were any of her business)

 

I patiently and politely explained to her that I am a fine art imagemaker who is trying to learn about documentary photography and that I'm in the process of honing those skills, which are a very different skill set from the type of work I normally do.

 

This explanation apparently satisfied this busybody woman that I am not some sort of pervert or criminal; she left me to my devices after that.

 

Whatever, lady...

 

Ha! You should have told her you were a kidnapper out scouting potential candidates, and watched her flip! Of course, you might not have been freed in time to write your post.

[Guest darkstar2004]

Ha! You should have told her you were a kidnapper out scouting potential candidates, and watched her flip! Of course, you might not have been freed in time to write your post.

LMAO!

 

Or maybe "I'm an adult cinema scout and I'm looking for new talent for a series of 'The Secret Lives Of Naughty Mothers' porn movies."

 

This woman would have had a screeching conniption fit and corrupted her underalls!! Screwing with busybodies can be such fun!!

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-conniption-fit.htm

[sparkie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The world was a different place back in HCB's day.

 

Briefly, the law - which differs by country of course - is that it is OK to take photos of people in public. Add in some commonsense, the obvious sensitive subjects to generally avoid, and the fact that there will always be someone who thinks they know the law and may try to stop you - plenty of cases of that posted on this forum already.

 

If you later publish an image, on your website say, or as part of an exhibition, said subject could ask you to remove their image, or would have to then take civil action against you for damages - what is the chance of that ever happening?

 

It would be a different matter if you found your face on a worldwide advertising campaign and plastered over billboards and the back of buses! But even then, I expect the photo would have to have been taken in a country where privacy laws exist (I'm no legal expert).

 

Summary, shoot, publish and be damned!

 

 

Interesting topic for us photographers. Both locally and internationally With paid shoots I know exactly where I stand with all the proper model and location sign-offs in place.

 

But with street photography its a bit of a lottery. I have many images captured at demonstrations with british police involved as well as hundreds of images captured of people either aware of me taking their image and not. The language barrier adds another layer of complexity while in foreign countries let alone trying to communicate something as involved as a release document to (sometimes) total strangers.

 

I guess "shoot first, ask questions later" is the edgy way-of-life of the street-photog nowadays.

[giordano]

I guess "shoot first, ask questions later" is the edgy way-of-life of the street-photog nowadays.

 

Isn't that "Shoot first, answer questions later"?

[sparkie]

Isn't that "Shoot first, answer questions later"?

 

both

 

"ask questions" like.. was that legal, was that the MI5 building (the unknown one), was that private property I was on..

 

"answer questions" only if you get caught

[Sandokan]

Privacy is a social and country specific concern.

 

In most of the Western type societies, taking photos in public is legal, but publishing them (making money) without permission is restricted (you can, but the subject is then entitled to compensation from you unless you have a waiver from them). You definitely cannot take a photo of someone and publish it out of context (for instance implying (directly or indirectly) a clearly recognisable person is engaged in an activity which is not legal, or that a person's lack of visual beauty is due to them smoking) as that is defamation (libel).

 

It is very difficult, but typically common sense prevails. Know what you are doing and why and be prepared to justify it to a busy body or official if necessary, in polite language.

[mojobebop]

Don't try to photograph at a U.S. federal courthouse - the security guards will be on you in a flash, demanding that you leave. I had an experience like this pre-9/11 and as a result have steered clear of the federal palaces ever since. It's a shame too, as they are full of potentially good images.

 

I have yet to have anyone that I am photographing on the street object - although I have had a couple of instances of other people objecting or asking questions.

 

Yesterday I was photographing peope at our Strawberry Shortcake Festival. One woman - whom I was not photographing - asked if I was with the newspaper. I said I was not and then she pointedly asked, "So... do you know these people you are taking pictures of?? " (as if were any of her business)

 

I patiently and politely explained to her that I am a fine art imagemaker who is trying to learn about documentary photography and that I'm in the process of honing those skills, which are a very different skill set from the type of work I normally do.

 

This explanation apparently satisfied this busybody woman that I am not some sort of pervert or criminal; she left me to my devices after that.

 

Whatever, lady...

 

With the excetion of her minor annoyance, I had a very nice couple of hours of making images and am looking forward to getting my film developed to see the results.

------------

i also had that experience after jury duty in ny, '99'.

one photo, then making a phone call, surrounded by several detectives asking for id.

i will never photograph another fed. building.

also leaving the va hospital in the bx. last year. outside the property. turned to photograph, and the policeman in the booth told me if i took it he would confiscate my camera.

[Guest darkstar2004]

------------

leaving the va hospital in the bx. last year. outside the property. turned to photograph, and the policeman in the booth told me if i took it he would confiscate my camera.

 

Yet another example of thugs with badges throwing their weight around via unlawful confiscation of citizen's property. At least in your case, it was just a threat.

 

Unless I'm totally off base here, Deputy Fife had no lawful authority to confiscate your camera or film because of making a photo of the hospital. This sounds like grounds for a lawsuit if he had carried out his threat.

 

At least the guards at the federal courthouse I was confronted by knew the law - they told me I could not make photographs but did not threaten me with unlawful confiscation of my property.

 

These infantile threats spring from the political philosophy of the nanny state: "Do as I say or I'll take your _____________ <camera, car, firearm, home, money, rights, freedom - fill in the blank> from you - I'm in charge here, I have power!"

 

This kind of "thinking" is the worldview of a third grade teacher trying to control a playground full of unruly children - it is not the outlook "the authorities" should be possessed of in a nation of (allegedly) free men and women.

 

Yet here we are...