[mikeSF]

The laws become even more blurred if there are children in the picture....

so do the pictures. Have you seen how fast those little buggers move?

[clackers]

What are you saying to me?

Don't worry, I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, Beachgardener!

[MadMathMind]

The laws become even more blurred if there are children in the picture....

I wouldn't say that the law is blurred, but people are rash to jump to conclusions. Thanks to a few big media scares and shows like Law and Order: SVU, people think their neighboorhoods are loaded with child predators. I've heard it get so bad that some old ladies will call the police on a single man who has taken his child to the playground and is just sitting there watching.

I don't believe your rights change because thought crime is still not a real thing yet, as much as people have tried to pass laws about that sort of thing. (That is, if someone gets off on photos of children/women/whatever ordinary clothing, then possession of such photos despite their devious purpose is not illegal; however, sexually explicit images would be.) But what can happen is that photographing children in public makes people jump to wild conclusions so that you can be hassled for no real reason other than paranoia. The accusations can be baseless and still ruin your life; people are quick to assume guilt in such cases, and heaven help you if you get an ambitious officer and DA who want to make a name for themselves.

As a consequence, I also stay away from photos of children I don't know because I don't want to get mixed up in anything (and because I really don't have any interest in taking those photos). When you think about that, it's really sad that this is even a valid concern among otherwise rational people.


It should also be noted that laws vary from state to state. Photographing the police is illegal in some states; how this can be remotely constitutional, I don't know. (Sounds like a few steps away from the gestapo.) Filming the police in others, even when all parties know about it, can also be illegal. A man recorded some egregious police abuse that vacated all the totally fabricated charges against him; the DA, a real champion of justice, filed charges against him for illegal wiretapping (I really hope that was noticed and the people voted that scumbag out of office forever). I believe that was in Connecticut, but my memory may be incorrect.

So yeah, the rules for photographing and videoing can be different and can vary from state to state.

[Lowell Goudge]

A thread I just stumbled upon made me wonder about that. And, of course, the gazillion shots on the net of people having a mishap:
What's the law for photographing people in your country?

In Germany it is quite restricted.
If you want to take a picture of someone you are not allowed to do this without permission. Unless it is a "public figure" or "person of public interest" or that person is not the focus of the shot, like crowds at a public place. Well, you can take a picture but you are not allowed to publish it in any way - and as most things so easily find their way online...

Even mugshot equivalents aren't allowed. A suspect stays pixelated until found guilty (though some tabloids circumvent that sometimes by re-printing it from another, usually foreign, source). And, of course, one has to have release forms signed for professional shoots.

I got into a fight once with a foreign visitor who took a photo of me in my favorite pub. A good one, too, with me looking thoughtfully at my Guinness. But I protested, lengthily, until he finally deleted it (we all ended up in his sisters kitchen drinking Jägermeister until the sun came up, but that's a different story ). There's no picture of me to be found online, and if there ever will be I want to be the judge and in control of it. As far as possible.
Just as I would never just publish family or friends.

How is it at your place?

If some unlucky pedestrian has, let's say, the bad luck of 100 pigeons dropping their load on him simultaneously... could you just shoot him for the rest of the world to laugh at? Or, less embarrassing, how to you do it with them portrait shots you share on this forum?

A long time ago, I started a thread where people could post laws for different places . The thread was intended to be a sticky which people could browse and reference all the different laws etc. I guess it got lost

---------- Post added 10-26-2014 at 05:14 PM ----------

I am not a lawyer but in the USA you have no right to privacy in a public place, I believe. So take all the pictures you want of people and places on public property. However, it seems Home Land Security tries to intimidate and prevent people from exercising their rights when they can.

You need to be careful here. There is a big difference between "public places" and places accessible to the public.

True public lands have no restriction, but private property open to the public ( shopping malls are a good example) require the owner's or tenant'so permission to photograph anywhere on the property. You can be told to stop, Andy if you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing.

Similarly, for people in a photograph the rights to privacy laws generally rule that if the person is the principle subject, you need their permission, if they just happen to be in an overall picture, you don't. The only exception is celebrities and public people, they are more or less fair game, but private citizens have the right to privacy that has some reasonable limits placed upon what you can do with an image.

My advise, if you are going to shoot someone and sell the image, get a release.

[tuco]

...
You need to be careful here. There is a big difference between "public places" and places accessible to the public.

I think "public property" pretty much sums it up and leave little ambiguity who is the land owner (public vs private) , no?

[Lowell Goudge]

I think "public property" pretty much sums it up and leave little ambiguity who is the land owner (public vs private) , no?

But public really does mean owned by one level of government, and nothing else. Malls, stores, areas etc are not "public" even though they are open to the public. There is a thread running , hopefully closed now, where someone claimed they were arrested for taking photos of a person in public, except they were on property owned by Walmart at the time.

You really need to know who owns it.

[MadMathMind]

This explains it well:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

This may be helpful as well:
Think twice before taking pictures in public - USATODAY.com

This one tells you about model releases:
http://my3boybarians.com/2011/10/can-i-take-pictures-of-people-in-public-31-...to-tips-day-3/

If you're selling the images, then you need it. If not, then you don't.

This describes the case I mentioned earlier (utterly baffling):
Public Photography Laws - Photographing Police and Public Places - Popular Mechanics

Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state's wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber's helmet constituted a "surreptitious" wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer's right to privacy.

This one is also relevant about "things on display in public" (but I can't say I recommend trying this one):
http://www.newser.com/story/197090/judge-upskirt-photos-at-lincoln-memorial-legal.html

Basically, the standard is "if everyone can see it, it's fair game." That includes people as well. However, it should be noted that even when you are within your rights, you can still be sued. You may win the case but it will be time-consuming and expensive. Best not to mess with such things if it's not really worth it.

---

Last edited by MadMathMind; 10-26-2014 at 08:45 PM.

[stevebrot]

True public lands have no restriction

Down here, that would be unless policy is in place that defines a restriction. There are some very controversial policies being discussed in regards to for-profit photography on U.S. National Forest lands. It is my understanding that they extend to the National Parks and BLM lands as well. In short, they are wanting to implement an expanded permit system that would require extensive documentation and off-set of administrative costs related to both still and motion picture production. A casual snapshot by a landscape pro on a day hike would still be allowed, but a multi-day excursion by a photo tour group might not.

I know this is a bit far afield from the concerns of street photographers, but eventually it may be that cities will claim right of oversight on the public sidewalks in much the same way as the Feds are doing so on the trails and forest roads.


Steve

[DeadJohn]

To answer the original question, in the USA we are generally free to photograph anyone we see. Using those photos in a commercial, non-journalistic manner requires a model release.

I had 2 run-ins with misinformed security and law enforcement who tried to stop me from taking architectural photos (terrorism OMG!!!). They both backed down when I pushed back; I think they knew the law but misquoted it attempting to intimidate me. Never had anyone accost me for taking photos of people.

---------- Post added 10-27-14 at 12:42 PM ----------

...but eventually it may be that cities will claim right of oversight on the public sidewalks...

The sidewalks in major cities are important and already undergo oversight. This is a good thing because without regulations and enforcement businesses would appropriate sidewalks for their own use. Sidewalk cafes, food carts, and film shoots all need permits to balance their business needs with other sidewalk users.

TV and film crews in NYC are regulated due to the impact on local residents, pedestrian traffic, and neighboring businesses. Personal photography is unrestricted but in crowded places a tripod is too much of an obstruction and a cop might tell you to move it.

[Lowell Goudge]

Down here, that would be unless policy is in place that defines a restriction. There are some very controversial policies being discussed in regards to for-profit photography on U.S. National Forest lands. It is my understanding that they extend to the National Parks and BLM lands as well. In short, they are wanting to implement an expanded permit system that would require extensive documentation and off-set of administrative costs related to both still and motion picture production. A casual snapshot by a landscape pro on a day hike would still be allowed, but a multi-day excursion by a photo tour group might not.

I know this is a bit far afield from the concerns of street photographers, but eventually it may be that cities will claim right of oversight on the public sidewalks in much the same way as the Feds are doing so on the trails and forest roads.


Steve

This is already the case when there is declared interest in commercial photography (I.e. Intended for advertising ) and also at any point, if and when the photography activity is an impediment to pedestrian or automobile traffic. I think you will find cities already have rules about this. But for the street photographer, which would be considered fine art, there is no issue at prestnt

[MRRiley]

Well, in the US, think of how many entertainment celebrities are photographed without their permission and there is no model release involved. They all make profit from public places and sell them in the rag sheets. Very rarely is there a lawyer involves since it is a public event and to me, some of the pictures taking are invasion of privacy such as the ones stalking celebrities to get pics of them sunbathing or other things.

That, in the US at least, is generally considered "editorial use" which is completely legal and requires no model releases, even if the images are sold to the media outlet by the photographer.

A long time ago, I started a thread where people could post laws for different places . The thread was intended to be a sticky which people could browse and reference all the different laws etc. I guess it got lost[COLOR="Silver"].

That post is still right at the top of the Gen Photo Forum as a sticky Lowell.

Mike

[gor80]

In Russia, the same laws - forbidden to photograph people without their permission, but in fact we have law in the field of photography is very poorly supported by a law.
Personally, I rarely photograph people on the street and of course when they do not see, I'm really shywe can take pictures of people in a public place
You can take pictures of police in the performance of, any of the politicians and famous people

[rburgoss]

People shooting (photos) on the street considers several steps:

Who - Where - How - What for:

If you are shooting at "strangers", better do your homework before hand. Not every place can be as open minded than others. It is not the same to shoot people at a crowded street than children at a school yard.

If you plan to shoot at children even on public places, you better get permission from parents or guardians BEFORE HAND. You can be arrested any moment buy just pointing a camera to a child (or beaten to death by half dozen fathers!!!). If its adults, and depending on situation, you can ask for permission after the shooting or better yet, before.

Of course, all this applies to "private" people. When it comes to "public" people, anything goes. Public people is anyone whose "persona" is of public interest. It may be political, sports, showbiz or just someone outstanding from the regular crowd. An expresident, a news anchor person, a local singer, the local quarterback, the community priest, the mayor or his wife or even Bill Gates. (You get the idea)

Under the presumption of "public person", they can be photographed any moment "without permission", but beware on where is the photograph taken. It may be taken ONLY on public places or during public events. No pictures shot into or within private places (unauthorized entry) are legal.

In short words, you can photograph anybody anywhere as long as it is in public places during public events. But this does not mean the picture can be used to endorse or illustrate any matter NOT RELATED to the photographed events or persons. For example, you cannot use a candid photo of some high school students "just hanging around" to illustrate something related to "drug abuse by teenagers".

About the what for: A picture can be used many ways. Such use determines the extent of liability for the photographer and the extent of responsability of whoever uses the picture for. A photo can be used ONLY for self promotion for the photographer, or it can be "sold" to image banks to later be resold as "stock images". It can be used as "archive photo" to illustrate some news or just to be used as advertising material for a tourist attraction.

This kind of pictures can be divided into three categories: Archival (self promotion), Photojournalistic (documental) and Advertising (commercial). Any of the three types need mandatory model releases whenever the person is identifiable in the picture and / or a monetary value is assigned for the use of such picture. The model release should clearly specify the limitations and rights of the photographer and the photographed in matters of usability, extent of limitations and for how long those limitations and permissions would be valid.

Some countries may have more strict rules and others may be more open for street photography. The rule of thumb is to always play safe and ask for permission. It is always good to hand out some business cards to people you contact for permission, telling them that you will like to send them back via e-mail, the photographs taken from them. Do not ask for e-mails. Just give'em your card and tell them "send me an e-mail and tell me: I'v the girl at the park in Boston..." so I can reply you with your pictures.

[Mikesul]

Last year while hiking in the desert near Phoenix I came upon a young couple relaxing under a tree. The young woman, veiled and wearing a colorful near eastern costume, was seated near a beautiful white horse who also sported elaborate cloth coverings and lovely tack. The man wore tee shirt and jeans. They were as startled to see me as I was to come upon this incredibly romantic scene so I decided to just nod a greeting a pass by. About an hour later I encountered them again on a trail. The woman was mounted on the horse and looked stunning in the afternoon light. She looked nothing like riders you sometimes see in the desert around Phoenix. The man followed behind on foot. This time I asked permission to photograph her. She firmly but politely waived her hand no but the man ran almost belligerently up to say a firm no. Clearly I was right to ask permission but I will always regret not having a photo. And I remain intrigued about what was going on.

[clackers]

so I decided to just nod a greeting a pass by.

What a shame you didn't stop and talk to them, Mike.

You might have got the shot with a sequence of conversation-request rather than request-conversation.

Their situation was so odd you may have been knocked back anyway, but surely it was worth trying!