[Lowell Goudge]

Here's my personal take on this, and my understanding of the law:

- The model release is never required. It is, however, a good idea. If you release a photo publicly you open yourself to potential defamation suits by the people in them (they don't like how they are portrayed, etc). A release will mitigate this risk. Generally speaking if the person is not identifiable they can't reasonably sue you.

My personal rules:

- If I don't mind posing, I will ask first.
- If I do mind posing, I will take first and ask after - and delete if requested.
- If the person is not identifiable, or just part of a crowd and not the subject(s) of a picture, I do not ask.

just so long as your first sentance "The model release is [I]never required[I]" is qualified to the discussion topic of shooting in public places

[dexmus]

Thanks, for the great info. I really appreciate it.

Would you guys know if I need a release if I enter a photo in a contest? As an example this shot:




You can't see their faces...

Dude, this is an awesome picture. Good luck with the contest.


cheers

[WerTicus]

straighten up the photo before you submit it...

otherwise it is good.

[jgredline]

If you have a couple of hours, you can learn allot from this thread and the various contributors.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/43981...-style%3D.html

[flyer]

IIRC, you don't always need a release to publish pictures of people. If the people are not the main subject, just incidental, and depending upon the main subject's importance, you can get away publishing pictures without release. If you take pictures of a crowd of two hundred people, they won't all line up to sign a release after you took the picture.

[Sirguy]

I'm new to this forum so far I'm enjoying it. I have been on the DPR review site for a couple or three years. Your Flicker page has some very nice shots on it. Thanks for sharing it, Jim

[FHPhotographer]

The OP was about etiquette, a question not of what can be done but what should be done.

I don't want to address etiquette, and I won't speak to what law says can or cannot be done, but I believe taking a photograph in public of someone without the subject's consent is unethical since it might be perceived as intrusive (harmful) by the subject.

Whether or not the photograph "feels" the same way about that intrusion is irrelevant since the photographer's intent for taking, or distributing, the photograph is unknown and unknowable to the subject at the time of the behavior. Therefore, the ethical issue is not based in the photographer's intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, but in the subject's perception of harm done.

If you accept that other people have rights equal to yours, and that the subject's perception of harm to those rights is as valid as your (possible) perception that no harm is done, the only reasoned and reasonable course, as the person affirmatively taking the action, is to stop your behavior. However, if you assert your right to take the photograph despite the subject's (possible) perception of harm, which is unknowable to you, your behavior indicates that you believe your rights are superior to the subject's rights, and that is unethical.
Brian

[creampuff]

The OP was about etiquette, a question not of what can be done but what should be done.

I don't want to address etiquette, and I won't speak to what law says can or cannot be done, but I believe taking a photograph in public of someone without the subject's consent is unethical since it might be perceived as intrusive (harmful) by the subject.

Whether or not the photograph "feels" the same way about that intrusion is irrelevant since the photographer's intent for taking, or distributing, the photograph is unknown and unknowable to the subject at the time of the behavior. Therefore, the ethical issue is not based in the photographer's intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, but in the subject's perception of harm done.

If you accept that other people have rights equal to yours, and that the subject's perception of harm to those rights is as valid as your (possible) perception that no harm is done, the only reasoned and reasonable course, as the person affirmatively taking the action, is to stop your behavior. However, if you assert your right to take the photograph despite the subject's (possible) perception of harm, which is unknowable to you, your behavior indicates that you believe your rights are superior to the subject's rights, and that is unethical.
Brian

Oh come on, yet another regurgitation of your FLAWED reasoning once again. Please give us all a break... apparently you still won't change your dogmatic ways and want to resurrect the same arguments once again...

[FHPhotographer]

Puff, if you logically refute my argument, I will apologize to one and all, and stop posting to this Forum.

I say it is unethical to take photographs of individuals in public without the subject's consent because (from my original post) it may do harm to the subject, and that harm is not based in the photographer's intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, but in the subject's perception of harm done. Therefore, if you assert you have a right to act (take the photograph) while denying the subject's right to be insulated from that action (based on the subject's perception of harm which is unknowable to you) then your behavior is unethical,
Brian

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't want to address etiquette, and I won't speak to what law says can or cannot be done, but I believe taking a photograph in public of someone without the subject's consent is unethical since it might be perceived as intrusive (harmful) by the subject.

this may be true if the person is the subject of the photo, buit if youy expand this to everyone in the photo then no one would take photos of anything because it is almost impossible in a public place to have no people.

[LinXitoW]

you guys in the US are so lucky! In Germany, you need written consent before even taking the picture, let alone publish it.

[Pentaxor]

this may be true if the person is the subject of the photo, buit if youy expand this to everyone in the photo then no one would take photos of anything because it is almost impossible in a public place to have no people.

right! and also there are situations where it is not necessary to ask nor should ask permission from the people you are taking a photo of, because it would simply kill the essence of the image if the subjects become aware that someone is about to take a photo of them. that is why there is such term as "human interest" in photography. now capturing a "human interest" in it's pure form could only be achieved without real knowledge of the subjects at hand. asking a permission afterwards maybe more ideal but it isn't mandatory act. I'm not sure what possible harm will it give the subjects of not knowing unless you do it for malicious reasons.

honestly, sometimes letting the person know that you are taking a picture of, would cause more harm than not asking. as a I said, etiquette is a good thing but it isn't 100% necessary.

situations where you don't need to ask permission from the subjects:

1.> subject is too far away or inaccessible from where you are shooting.
2.> kids playing
3.> subject is running or busy doing his/her own business
4.> subject willingly poses for you
5.> if asking permission would make you or the subject look pathetic or feel awkward (very unnecessary)
6.> if it would affect or influence the natural look or essence of the image you are about to capture.

I could sight some more but those are the most obvious reasons.

the scope of human interest in photography is very wide and are mostly used as subjects in candid, street, snapshot, documentary, journalism, reports, and other types of photography. so it isn't really a matter of practicing proper etiquette 100% at a time but rather setting limits or borders.

otherwise, I'm not sure whether the police would need to ask for a consent from a criminal whom is about to have his mugshot taken. that would be funny !

[FHPhotographer]

Pentaxor, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say this, unless you are trying to support my argument?
If I understand your post, it would be wrong to ask for consent because to do so might affect the subject's behavior, possibly "...kill the essence of the image" and even cause harm to the subject? And that "...letting the person know that you are taking a picture of, would cause more harm than not asking." That means that not asking is, to some degree, harmful? Well, that's what makes it unethical,

Brian

[Pentaxor]

Pentaxor, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say this, unless you are trying to support my argument?
If I understand your post, it would be wrong to ask for consent because to do so might affect the subject's behavior, possibly "...kill the essence of the image" and even cause harm to the subject? And that "...letting the person know that you are taking a picture of, would cause more harm than not asking." That means that not asking is, to some degree, harmful? Well, that's what makes it unethical,

Brian

to make it simple, there are situations where or when you need to ask someone for a permission. not necessarily you have to do it all the time. the question is what harm is being done or had been done? and to whom? photographers themselves are also subject to harm as well as much as the subject. this is in light of photography concerning human interests which is very broad even by types and definition.

the subject of photography etiquette have limits and exceptions as well. I believe it is not a cardinal rule that needs to be followed all the time irregardless of any situations or circumstances, but rather knowing when or when it is not applicable.

[monochrome]

Puff, if you logically refute my argument, I will apologize to one and all, and stop posting to this Forum.

I say it is unethical to take photographs of individuals in public without the subject's consent because (from my original post) it may do harm to the subject, and that harm is not based in the photographer's intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, but in the subject's perception of harm done. Therefore, if you assert you have a right to act (take the photograph) while denying the subject's right to be insulated from that action (based on the subject's perception of harm which is unknowable to you) then your behavior is unethical,
Brian

By your logic no one should speak within anyone else's hearing range.

Certain words, topics of conversation, languages - nay, even gestures - may offend someone so greatly that they cause severe emotional distress, which can raise his or her blood pressure, potentially doing immediate physical harm. I know there are lines of reasoning that distress me and raise MY blood pressure!

Over a lifetime, the accumulated series of emotional responses can damage a person's sense of self, making it harder for him or her to confidently coexist in our complex society. I read that repeated high blood pressure events will certainly cause someone to die sooner than he or she otherwise would have.

Now we certainly cannot know, casually walking through the mall conversing with a companion, that a person who hears our speech could be harmed by it, or perceive our innocuous conversation as harmful, but there's the rub - we cannot possibly know.

We cannot assume, contrary to the schoolyard retort, that in fact while sticks and stones may break their bones, words can never hurt them.

So therefore, if we speak at all within people's range of hearing we are behaving unethically, because we are imposing our right to speak on their rights not to have us speak on subjects which may harm them or which they may perceive to be harmful, without any foreknowledge on our part whether our words or topic of conversation are, in fact, harmful to or perceived by those around us to be harmful to them.

In fact, we really shouldn't speak at all unless we are absolutely and totally familiar with all persons within our range of speaking, and with all their opinions on everything, all their social prejudices and all their socio-cultural and religious beliefs about hearing words that may harm them or which they may perceive to be harmful to them.

And, of course, we can never assume that we know everything about anyone, nor that someone would tell us if we were harming them by speaking, nor if they perceived our words to be harmful to them. They might be made uncomfortable by their word-association affliction, or by their belief that words can harm them, and might not be willing to admit such. Thus in our arrogance, not only do we cause them harm, we further thoughtlessly and needlessly exclude them from our warm and caring companionship.

How unethical is that?

In fact, before speaking, we really ought to ask everyone around us whether they will be harmed or perceive our speech to be harmful to them if we speak - but then we have to speak to ask if it OK to speak, so we are behaving unethically just by attempting to behave ethically and asking if we may speak.

So therefore, I assert, we should never speak within the hearing range of anyone without first writing a note that requests a speaker release. But then the words in the note requesting the speaker release might be harmful or perceived by the reader to to be harmful.

Further, the fact that the reader must either grant you the right to speak words that might be harmful or which he or she might perceive to be harmful, or admit that that words can harm them or they perceive that words can harm them - that very conflict might cause them harmful emotional distress . . .

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Q.E.D.