Legality of candid images

[donna_lear]

Like Jude, I'm a newspaper photographer and in the eight years I've been doing this, I've never asked someone to sign a release. In most cases, we do ask for names (and sometimes where they live and their ages, if they're children.) When photographing children, I always ask permission to use the shot. I often take shots prior to asking, but then introduce myself to the mother or father, tell them I've just taken a picture of their child and ask if it's all right to use it in the paper. Even in a small town, there can be issues where it would not be a good idea to have the child's photo published.
I've only been told not to use a shot twice - both times related to children. Using a digital camera, I showed both people that I was deleting the shot.
As far as being told I wasn't allowed to take a photo of something, I've rarely been told that and I usually - politely - reply, "Well, yes, I am, but .. if you could please tell me why you would prefer I didn't, I'd be happy to consider that." The time I was taking shots of a drug raid and undercover police were involved, I acquiesed because having their faces in print could have endangered them. What I didn't do, however, was let them take my camera or my film. And yes, they asked for it.
Some of my photos are taken while technically 'on the job', but my editor knows and doesn't mind, even if some of them are the same or similar to things she'll be running. She is actually rather proud of the fact that I like what I do for them enough to use the photos here to share with all of you.
I do thank Aestus for posting the links to the attorney sites on photography in public places .. very, very helpful stuff to know.

[leggings]

I have found it best to get a photo release but for candid shots in public I don’t feel that there is a need for it. I had this debate at university with a professor. One of my photos was picked to be in a museum show and she would not allow it because I did not have a release for it. It is a street candid shot. The photo did end up going into the show after some debate. I feel that most of it depends on how the person is depicted and that is where damages can be sought. This happened awhile ago with a girl in a Girls Gone Wild Video. She did not sign a release and said she was not aware of the company. I thought that was a load of you know what but she did have a point.

The internet is a wonderful place but some images can be damning to the person and how they are depicted because most photos are just a slice of a moment in time and do not show the whole of what is going on. To be cliché, a photograph is a moment taken out of time. With the advent of digital work and elaborate techniques a person can be shown in a way that is very unkind.

As for photographing children in public, I feel that again if they are in a public place then it is fine to photograph them. Private property is different because if you plan on selling the print or publishing it then a release is needed but that all depends on what the image is going to be used for. If it is art then that is a grey area. If it is being used to sell a product and for commercial use then a release is needed for a person or property. If the image is being sold as art then it is best to get a release but not necessarily needed. And I do think we can all agree that the girl in the Girls Gone Wild video was not photographed for artistic purposes.

That being said, if a person does not wish to be photographed then, I think it comes down to ethics and the principles of the photographer. If a person who own property does not want their property to be photographed, like a mall, shop, barn, whatever then that should be respected the same with the person not wanting their photo taken.

Journalism is different because I could not image a journalist running up to a person who has been shot, stabbed, etcetera, and asking for them to sign a release. Same goes for celebrities and paparazzi. Ethics come into play but as will all journalism there should be something said about photographing the truth.

So, I think you can get away with photographing in public as long as it is not private property and you don’t intend on using an image to sell something.


Duncan

[cjmorgan]

How do we stand as photograhers, legally, if we publish on PBase pictures of people without their consent?

Photographers answer photographic questions, but legal questions
are best answered by your local lawyers. Not trying to be difficult
here, but only suggesting that if you're concerned about your
foot, you don't consult with a dentist. Know what I mean?
CJ

[clickaway]

Some good points being made here.

So when does a child cease to become a child?

I tend to avoid shooting and publishing people who appear to be under 16, but tend to use my discretion. One case in point being a young girl who was on a public stage - its on the way to implicit permission by her parents.

Here in the UK, many 'youth' events such as gymnastics, swimming galas, nativity plays and such carry a photography restriction - only accredited photographers are allowed and then they need permissions. These are rules laid down by the organisers.

Intertesting point about photojournalism and celebrities. Those images are often likely to be more contraversial and sensitive than the ones we are going to take....

Ray