[CarlJF]

When they say that you need the permission of an individual, before publishing a picture of him/her, does it apply to non-profit pictures that we upload on Flickr or only to pictures published in newspapers and such?

My question is specifically concerning street photography.

Technically speaking, publishing is publishing, no matter if it's for profit or non-profit, personnal or commercial use, web or paper. That said, the situation is not always black and white and each provinces has its own laws. For street photography, we're usually talking about people in public places. If they're not the main subjects (like anynomous bystanders in an event), you don't need permission even if some are recognisable. However, if the person is the main subject, you usually need permission to publish. For example, if you take a picture of a musician with people aroud him, you would need the permission of the musician but not of every other people... AFAIK, this kind of pictures are considered under the same rules as editorial pictures.

So, it always depends on the context of the picture, which often put it in a grey zone... For example, if I still take the picture of the musician above, it may need a permission if labeled "violonist on Elm street" but not if labeled "the joy of public music", since you could argue that your picture shows a public event and not a portrait of the musician...

[CarlJF]

When they say that you need the permission of an individual, before publishing a picture of him/her, does it apply to non-profit pictures that we upload on Flickr or only to pictures published in newspapers and such?

My question is specifically concerning street photography.

You can find detailed answers to your questions there: CIPPIC COPYRIGHT AND PRIVACY IN PHOTOGRAPHY

More to the point:

You generally need permission to distribute a photograph of a person, even for the purpose of personal photography....For any type of use, you should obtain permission if you intend to publish or exhibit your photographs. This includes online distribution. Courts have found that even photographs posted to Internet newsgroups without permission may violate privacy rights.

That is good if I take a picture of a specific person, what about a crowd? BTW I'm still too shy to take my 28mm and point it at a stranger, I'd rather use my 50mm and stay away lolll

This question has been answered by the Supreme Court of Canada: Legal Rights in a Photograph

One other question about the rights of a person in a photograph is what happens when a person is not, in fact, the subject of a photograph, but is merely a sort of bystander, incidental to the real subject-matter. The Supreme Court in Aubry suggested that if someone is not the subject of a photo, he or she does not need to approve his or her presence in it; no permission need be obtained from a person who is “an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals in the photograph.”

[Helios 1984]

So, it always depends on the context of the picture, which often put it in a grey zone... For example, if I still take the picture of the musician above, it may need a permission if labeled "violonist on Elm street" but not if labeled "the joy of public music", since you could argue that your picture shows a public event and not a portrait of the musician...

I'll make sure to remember this one.

So why limit yourself to Flickr when all it takes is a quick explanation of who you are, what your are doing and quite often simply a promise to send a JPEG of the image(s) you capture to that person. You have now met the requirement of providing compensation to the model.

To me, it's just good business practice and courtesy.

I don't think there would be objections coming from street performers, might be a bit more tricky with strangers (Challenge accepted).

[ChipB]

Ran across this article in Digital Photo Pro about some changes to the way copyrights could be enforced (or not).

[URL="http://www.digitalphotopro.com/business/defending-your-copyright"/URL]

[aslyfox]

in a thread discussing a local law imposing a requirement to purchase a license prior to allowing photography

Laguna Beach Requires a $100+ Permit for ANY Kind of Photo Shoot in Public - PentaxForums.com

the issue of the First Amendment rights of photographers came up

based on some brief research and citing a 2012 article, it would appear that there is no First Amendment right to take photographs for a specific purpose: : private recreational photography that is for one’s own personal use. . . .

____________________________

No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights. The rulings closest to that issue involve expressive speech and conduct.

“The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word … we have acknowledged that conduct may be ‘sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.’

“In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Six years later, the Supreme Court reiterated, “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)

So speech or conduct (taking photographs) that satisfies both of the elements above is allowed and protected in the “public forum.” Using this guide, we can look to the courts and find one type of photography that is not protected by the First Amendment: private recreational photography that is for one’s own personal use. . . .

Thus, the lower courts [ the federal district courts as opposed to any federal appellate court ] have found that non-communicative recreational photography is not protected by the First Amendment. What, then, is the level of protection given to “communicative” photography?

Photography & the First Amendment | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

[ the above research is not meant to be thorough, it took seconds, and is definitely not to be taken as legal advice, consult an attorney directly if that is what you are seeking, don't try to find it on the web ]

_____________________

any thoughts or comments

[PDL]

Just got this off of the Phoblographer daily update: The Most Basic Thing You Need To Know About Street Photography

You Tube

You Tube

[dlh]

Downloadable pdf of photographer's rights in the US. I carry a copy of this in my camera bag.

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

That's a good summary, but I'd point out in particular that the author is vague as to laws that vary from state to state within the U.S. Most folks don't seem to understand that each state IS a "state"; Maryland is a state, Scotland is a state, France is a state, Texas is a state. The implication is that the law changes (fairly drastically in some instances) when you cross the borders from any state to any other. Americans are particularly bad at understanding this issue, and are sometimes imprisoned in foreign states for things they couldn't imagine because it wouldn't have happened where they're from. Openly carrying a firearm is normal in Virginia, but will get you locked up right quick in Illinois, for example.

One thing that author didn't cover is copyright interests inherent in implementations of architectural design. Making a "derivative work" (e.g., a photograph) of the original artist's copyrighted work (the architect's design as implemented in the construction) can be a problem. Two or more such copyright violations would also be a violation of the "Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act" ("RICO") for which one can be punished criminally as well as civilly. Last time I checked, enforcement of such interests was still a vague area of the law.

[aslyfox]

That's a good summary, but I'd point out in particular that the author is vague as to laws that vary from state to state within the U.S. Most folks don't seem to understand that each state IS a "state"; Maryland is a state, Scotland is a state, France is a state, Texas is a state. The implication is that the law changes (fairly drastically in some instances) when you cross the borders from any state to any other. . . .

as a licensed attorney since 1982, I agree 100 %

people do not realize that the " law " can change with the various jurisdictions, local, state, federal, or country

" that question involve both Federal and State law which may differ "

those choosing to engage in business need to consult competent legal counsel, and do it repeatedly, laws change