[lakeshore]

See the article in the accompanying link:

Ottawa jogger who wound up in an ad without her knowledge wins precedent-setting privacy fight - Ottawa - CBC News

Taking pictures of people in public spaces is becoming more and more sketchy.

[Wingincamera]

I think the mistake the photographer made was using the photo for commercial purposes. The photographer should have got a signed release from the person being photograph.

[enoeske]

Happened in Canada, so check out the laws there, not US but...

She was jogging in a public place, but the camera man specifically videoed her running. She specifically try to block her face, but the camera man kept videoing. Her "scene" in the video was a split screen with 2 other anonymous people.

It was then used in a commercial piece to advertise the selling of some condominiums.

She also complained to the condo company to not be a part of it, and they complied and took down the video. But the media company that made the video didn't comply and didn't take the video down.

[TwoUptons]

A colleague of mine was sued when a photo he took of a man kissing his girlfriend during a protest march made the cover of the local (US) newspaper. Apparently the fiscal damages that ensued when the man’s wife saw the photo were considerable...

The suit was thrown out because it was news coverage of a public event in a public place, so there was no expectation of privacy.

The Canadian example is very different... and the video folks should know better...

-Eric

[jatrax]

Use of unreleased images of people in a commercial as opposed to an editorial piece not being legal is photography 101. The photographer and the media company should have known that. I see nothing precedent setting about this. Anyone shooting for money should already know if they use someone's image in a commercial without a release they are likely to get sued.

[EarlVonTapia]

I think the key is here:

"The photographer was not just filming a moving river, he or she was waiting for a runner to jog along the adjacent jogging trail to advertise the possibility of the particular activity in Westboro," Judge Roger Leclaire wrote in his judgment.

The lazy media production company should have just paid $50 to have an aesthetically pleasing actor to do the jogging instead.

[clackers]

Yeah, I think this is a warning not to street photographers, but would-be commercial ones.

Note that if you try to make an income out of stock photography, the agencies (including Adobe) want an uploaded model release.

[jatrax]

Yeah, I think this is a warning not to street photographers, but would-be commercial ones.

Agree. Although rules do vary from country to country in general there is no restriction on photographing people, places or things that are in public view. However, being legal to TAKE the photograph does not mean that all USES of that photograph are legal. As the Ottawa folks just found out.

[mee]

Obviously if you record images of someone who doesn't want their photo taken then you're doing it wrong. If you keep recording you're really doing it wrong (and perhaps in danger of violent response). If you then market this footage commercially you're looking for a lawsuit.

I really cannot stand having my photo taken.. much more video.. esp with the ease of taking and the ease of sharing it online, a lot of stupid stuff happens.

So I try to go out of my way to respect people's privacy when I'm out shooting.. mostly at public spots.. parks, lakes, etc. Most people are pretty cordial but sometimes I get the unfriendly don't trust you look. I think the 'big' camera intimidates and scares some people... they want to know 'what is their intention with all of that hardware?'

And, saying that, I've had crazy run ins before while minding my own business.. such as when I was photographing flowers in a quiet, public park with a macro lens (really close to the flowers). And with my back turned, maybe 100 feet away from a playground area with a couple kids on it, never aiming the camera at the kids. Some woman in a truck on the exit road nearby to me slams her truck's brakes and slides to a halt, yelled angrily at me something about kids in the park and I shouldn't be here (I'm assuming because of the camera), and then she spun her wheels in a burn out and flew out of there.. she was livid. Until that moment I didn't even know she existed.

I finished my photos but didn't stay around long.. mostly because I had no idea where she was going and if, who, or what she was bringing back.. someone that 'emotional' is not thinking clearly.

Can you imagine if you were out in a public spot and you took HER photograph and she noticed you taking it? Or you caught her kids in your shot?

Interestingly, I've yet to be stopped or questioned by the police out in town.. even setup with a tripod on a sidewalk along a fairly busy road (trying long exposures). They have to see me.. but they've been reasonable. No Barney Fifes thus far.. though I know they exist.

[Wheatfield]

See the article in the accompanying link:

Ottawa jogger who wound up in an ad without her knowledge wins precedent-setting privacy fight - Ottawa - CBC News

Taking pictures of people in public spaces is becoming more and more sketchy.

It's not the taking the video that was the problem. The problem started when her recognizable image was used without her permission as part of the condo's advertising. Nothing has changed regarding sketchiness of taking pictures of people in public, nothing has changed regarding needing a signed model release if you want to use a person's likeness as part of your advertising.