[Undot]

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?

[LensBeginner]

Well, last time I checked in Italy it's mostly the same: on public soil you can photograph all you want, but you cannot publish unless you get a model release if the person is a significant part of the picture, IIRC.
For instance, you can shoot a crowd and publish the picture, since you can remove one face and it won't detract from the picture, even if it's recognizable (always IIRC).

If you would have asked me to delete a picture, I would have laughed in your face, because taking a picture of you in Italy is allowed.
Then I couldn't pubhlish it anywhere, but that's another story entirely.
I publish 1/1000 of my pictures on my blog, and never pictures of people, so this is a non-issue...

[tuco]

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.

[pete-tarmigan]

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?

A related question is: If photographing people in public places is legal in your country, are you allowed to publish the photographs for profit? This is an important point for people who make a living from photography.

[stevebrot]

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.

That is my understanding as well, though the definition of public gets a little blurred sometimes.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-24-14 at 12:03 PM ----------

are you allowed to publish the photographs for profit? This is an important point for people who make a living from photography.

My understanding is that there is no legal proscription in the U.S., but that a model release would be a good idea if a person in the photo is obviously the subject and is readily recognizable.


Steve

[Moropo]

Those laws make no sense. You are in public and you are letting anyone lay their eyes on you. However, a picture suddenly is a big no-no?

USA's law is the one that makes the most sense.

[beachgardener]

In Australia photographing people in public is legal, one does need permission to photograph on private property, however it is ok to photograph private property from public spaces.

---

Last edited by beachgardener; 10-24-2014 at 01:32 PM. Reason: add info.

[clackers]

In Australia photographing people in public is legal, one does need permission to photograph on private property, however it is ok to photograph private property from public spaces.

Well, it's not legal in places like many swimming pools or railway stations. Commercial photography is also not possible in many parks and other public spaces without a permit.

As a general rule, there's no actual law stopping someone photographing another individual unless they then make money from it, or if it's defamatory (footage of overweight people on beaches might be pixelated by nervous TV station legal departments).

But remember: laws are one thing, being a sh_t human being pursuing your hobby is another.

[promacjoe]

I live in the US, and even though it is legal to take pictures in a public place, I find that a little common courtesy goes a long way. For instance, I never take pictures of kids, without the parents permission. However, sporting events where kids are playing, Is an exception. And even then I am taking pictures for one of the parents that has kids playing in the game, and I do not publish them, I turned them over to the parent. In a public park or street, I only take pictures of landscapes, wildlife, buildings, where the subject is not a person. If I want to take a picture of an individual I asked them first. If they refuse I go on my way, and choose another subject. Being courteous and respecting other people's rights goes a long way to reducing any problems in the future. In some cases, standing on your rights, Regardless of what other people think, can do more harm than good.

[Sandy Hancock]

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

[clackers]

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

I don't think any Federal or State laws prevent us Aussies taking pictures of either a father or his daughter at a playground with a telephoto wearing a stained trenchcoat, Sandy.

Which is why I'm saying forget about what's in legislation and think about our manners and common decency.

The father coming after us fists flailing doesn't have legal entitlement but IMHO has the moral high ground. :-)

[JimC1101]

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.

[promacjoe]

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.

True, generally there are no laws prohibiting that, As long as you're not stalking them. Stalking laws can be used against the photographer here in the US. Especially if they stage certain encounters, which has happened. They can become a nuisance to celebrities. Which is why I don't agree with the practice. That's what got Princess Diana killed. It is one thing to find out that a celebrity is someplace, and take a picture of them from a distance. It is another to impede their rights to go about their lives in a normal fashion. In my opinion, Their rights to go about their lives, supersedes your right to take the picture. There are some celebrities that are leaving California, simply because of so many people stalking them.

[Schick]

In Canada, from what I have researched, we have pretty liberal rights, and that includes taking photos. The right to take photos is great, but where we are when we take them is the issue.

We are also fortunate in that the police cannot simply deny us the right to take photos simply because they think we can't. Police can not interfere with our lawful enjoyment of property. They can not search us, detain us, nor imprison us without legal reason. Federal law even allows us to publish photos, although there are restrictions (of course). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also says that every Canadian is guaranteed a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can not take photos of people who are in circumstances where they believe that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, a bathroom. This generally extends to include a person inside their own home, or anywhere where they have reason to believe is a private place.

Seems sensible to me.

[beachgardener]

But remember: laws are one thing, being a sh_t human being pursuing your hobby is another.

What are you saying to me?