Legality of candid images

[carlvdm]

How do we stand as photograhers, legally, if we publish on PBase pictures of people without their consent? I think of such scenes as beach images showing folk in their bathers, street images showing folk walking down avenues, images of folk having coffee together at a table, etc. etc. etc.? Any guidelines??[/img]

[clickaway]

Well, the law varies from country - I believe the laws are pretty strict in France for example, but whilst I haven't taken advice, I would guess that most ordinary candids would be OK.

Look at all the candids you see published in print and on the net...

I bumped into a photographer last year who was selling a calendar which included an old boy in front of the cenotaph in London - a pure candid shot, and her lawyer did not see any problem.

But best seek proper advice if you are being serious about it.

Ray

[santa]

from what I can glean, in most of the US, you can't publish and image of somebody commercially (make money off it) without a release. If you are not doing it professionally, you could still be stopped from putting on the net if there was a complaint, but they may not have any grounds for getting any damages. Still, defending could be expensive. I put up shots of people all the time but anyone publishing a picture of another person could find themselves being sued. It's easy to bring a suit, but harder to prove you have been damaged. If the picture shows them in a disrespectful or embarrassing way it could be a real issue. Other than that, as you can tell, many many people publish pictures of others on the net all the time. Magazines are different in that the photographer is probably getting paid. Newspapers are...news...and somewhat more exempt.

[jeremygood]

I read a piece by a lawyer on your rights as a photographer. Basically, anything you see in public can be photographed and printed legally. This includes people, buildings, parks, beaches, whatever. There are some exceptions regarding military bases and that sort of thing, but in general, if you're in public, you are free to capture what you see and pass it on to others in any form.

You are not supposed to use candids in advertisements and perhaps some other commercial ventures, but even publishing candids is okay. A newspaper was sued for publishing a photo of a man and woman walking down the street holding hands (because both parties were married, but not to each other). However, the newspaper won the lawsuit because the couple had been photographed in a public place where anyone could have seen them. Typically though newspaper photographers get some sort of release before publishing.

I still have a question regarding whether places like malls, particularly outdoor malls, are public. I was asked by security to not take photos at the Spectrum, which is a large outdoor mall. I argued saying that I was legally within my rights to take photos in public, but they pointed out that the Spectrum is owned by the Irvine Company and is NOT public. So, the same logic probably applies to restaurants, amusement parks, sports venues, etc.

Also, I wonder whether the "what you see in public" rule applies to standing in a public street or alley and photographing people inside their homes through uncurtained windows. I was out for a fun night shoot a while back at about 11 pm and I noticed some people moving around inside a house. I did not take any pictures, but it struck me how shocked they might be to look out their back window and see a man in the alley photographing them. I was stopped by the police later that night just because it was late at night and I was carrying a tripod and backpack, probably looked a little suspicious. I asked the cop if I could take his picture and he said he'd prefer I didn't. He told me it was late and to watch out for hooligans.

Jeremy

[clickaway]

I'm not sure if the photo of Major Charles Ingram and his wife in this UK court case was a candid, but it looks and sounds like it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3173016.stm

He lost his case

Another difficult area is the legality of photographing young children that are not yours, unless you have specific permission.

I'm of course talking about 'healthy' pictures here, but I would say it was wise to be careful in these instances.

Ray

[camera0bug]

I usually ask permission when I shoot strangers.

Helps to foist a business card on them and tell them
they're gonna be famous!

[aestus]

Here's a downloadable pamphlet from an American Attorney;

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

[aestus]

...and from a Toronto lawyer regarding Canadian law;

Canadian law is moving in the direction of granting more and more rights to the person who takes the photograph, as opposed to the person who commissions it or the person who is in it. The proposed modifications to the Copyright Act will grant broad rights to the creator of a photograph, and only very narrow rights to the person who pays for its creation. As for the subject of the photograph, Canadian courts will not go (or at least have not gone) very far in granting rights to someone who is pictured in a photograph. There might be a basic requirement to get the subject’s consent for the taking and initial use of the photograph, and there might be a requirement to get someone’s consent for the commercial exploitation of their image. But if these conditions are satisfied, then the photographer’s copyright will be treated as absolute. Just as the writer of a book has certain rights that usually supersede the rights of the publisher or the subject of the book, the photographer will soon have rights that usually – not always, but usually – supersede the rights of others.

http://www.zvulony.com/photograph_rights.html

[gpaai]

I was asked by security to not take photos at the Spectrum, which is a large outdoor mall. I argued saying that I was legally within my rights to take photos in public, but they pointed out that the Spectrum is owned by the Irvine Company and is NOT public.

Jeremy

That's interesting... I shoot at the Spectrum all of the time, example, and have even shot Security without any problems.

There are places in the Block of Orange that give me a lot of hassle.

Gary

[dwinge]

...
Also, I wonder whether the "what you see in public" rule applies to standing in a public street or alley and photographing people inside their homes through uncurtained windows...

Jeremy

From what I have read, in the US, a person in their home or office has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and taking a photo of someone through a window of a home or office is not within your rights as a photographer. That said, any public place is fair game because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
David

[floradoragirl]

In the UK under the new Data Protection laws, you can't publish a picture of a child on the web or printed publication without either the child's permission (if it is old enough to give informed consent) or its parents' permission (if the child is deemed too young to decide). You can picture the child but not its face, or at least not enough to be recognisable.

[camera0bug]

That will put a crimp in documentary street photowork.

What's next?

No photos of buildings without the owner's permission?

No photos of animals without their hoof prints?

No photos of nature without god's permission?

Sheesh!
Bring back the old days of Weegee...

[grafix72]

Dan,

As the legal representative of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster, here into refered to as FSM, I would please ask that you remove any images from your galleries. As you are no doubt aware FSM is responsible for the creation of everything with his noodly appendage so by displaying images of his creation without permission is a violation of the law. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Pastafarian Theta Level IX
Russ

//for those who do not now about FSM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

[camera0bug]

[quote="grafix72"]Dan,

As the legal representative of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster, here into refered to as FSM, I would please ask that you remove any images from your galleries. As you are no doubt aware FSM is responsible for the creation of everything with his noodly appendage so by displaying images of his creation without permission is a violation of the law. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Pastafarian Theta Level IX
Russ


Thanks for wising me up Russ!

I was wondering why I kept seeing "noodly appendages" in the shadows of my night photographs. Now that that's been cleared up I can delete all my photos and go live in peace near the Stripper Factory up on Beer Volcano!

All my cameras will be donated to indigent tribes in the mountains of Borneo. Slug & Emily will be responsible for their welfare.

Jah Pastafarian!
- Dub Dan the Spaghetti Man

[jude_53]

As a newspaper photographer I can honestly say that we do NOT get releases from people we shoot. Now, the paper is in a smallish city and that may be why, but no one has ever challenged my taking of their photo. I will say I rarely take candid shots where the person is not aware of their photo being taken and for what purpose. Generally, I shoot what I want and get their names aftewards, as we identify people/kids etc, in our cutlines. But I have taken some photos at football games - fans, etc. and the people are not identified. No one has ever complained.. in fact, they order photos for print..LOL

I'm sure this is indicative of small areas, but truthfully, when I take a child's photo (as I do most days) and a parent is there watching me.. they will even tell their child to look my way... show their face. Undoubtedly, we are more trusting here.

Bottom line is we are told what has been said earlier in this thread "Public places are open to shoot" .. if someone is in the public for all to see.. they are in the public for ALL TO SEE. period.