Taking photos of People in public etiquette

trod77 · 12-10-2009, 07:48 AM

I often find myself "seeing" a photo moment of people just doing everyday stuff or subject but there's people in the view, but I never take it. First, I'm still very self-conscious about people seeing me take photos, but also I really don't know what the "rules" are when taking pictures of random strangers. Could someone kinda give me the etiquette's of what and to what not to do.

Thanks.

(Sorry if this is the wrong spot to start this thread, didn't know where else).

Wheatfield · 12-10-2009, 09:34 AM

Etiquette and what is legal are, perhaps, two different things.
Since you are in the USA, USA laws apply.
In a nutshell, you can photograph anything you like with the following provisions:
You are in a publicly owned place and what you are photographing isn't a national security installation.
There will be some exceptions to this, I am sure.
Now, whether or not you are comfortable photographing random strangers is one thing and whether or not said random strangers object is something else, but the fact is, if a person is in public, they legally have no expectation of privacy and no right to demand that you not photograph them as long as you are not impeding them in any way.
What you cannot do is sell said photographs without a model release, though you can publish said photographs as long as you aren't doing it commercially.
Again, there will be some exceptions to this, so do some research yourself, and remember that legal advice gleaned from internet forums is always suspect.

flyer · 12-10-2009, 09:37 AM

Generally, if you are in a public space and you can see them, you can photograph them. BUT it does'nt mean you can sell it. For that you need a release.

trod77 · 12-10-2009, 09:48 AM

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...

Jimmy DL · 12-10-2009, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by flyer

Generally, if you are in a public space and you can see them, you can photograph them. BUT it does'nt mean you can sell it. For that you need a release.

In sweden (my country) you can sell them as long as the purpose is art or journalism in some aspect. But you can´t use the images to sell something else, ie using them for commerial purposes without a release.

arbib · 12-10-2009, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by trod77

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...

I don't think so.. I think in the US, there's needs to be a "Recognizable" part..Like the FACE that can Identify the people. In this example, they are so small, there is not enough detail to "Identify" them. But, read the rules and maybe ask a question or 2, to be on the safe side.

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-10-2009, 10:05 AM

I would like to raise a couple of points here.

First of all,

there is a sticky thread on photographer's rights and laws in the Gatherings, Events and Photo Trips forum here

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/gatherings-events-photo-trips/60281-photo...trictions.html

where I encourage people to post links to relevant sites for specific countries / Locations and the laws and rights of photographers.

Second:

With respect to photographing in public.
-As people have mentioned, this really does mean public property not just property open to the public, and there is a big difference.
-Also, the need for a release is that people have to be recognizable, and the release is generally for use of the photo for the purpose of profit. The example shown here where people are not positively recognizable does not need a release.
- News events do not require a release.
- it is also important to note, that if the subject is NOT on public property and you are, the subject must be reasonably visible from public property to photograph it. This means you can't encroach on doorways, climb fences etc to get the photo, that is invasion of privacy.
- you also need to consider copywrite in terms of use of images where trademarks or other protected images are visible in your image. This may include buildings, signs, or even re-staged images that someone else already took.

Marc Sabatella · 12-10-2009, 10:22 AM

Regarding publication of a photo:

My understanding - based on a fair amount of reading, but no particular legal expertise on my part - is that in US, whether or not the use is for profit is *not* the issue as far as the law goes. It is whether the use implies an endorsement of any kind. That is, you can sell a print of a random person in public as a work of art, but you can't use that picture in an ad for, say, Viagra, without permission. There are also invasion of privacy issues, but they apply only to people with an expectation of privacy - eg, not in a public place, or making an effort to conceal themselves.

And all of this only applies to images in which the subject is recognizable.

Of course, individual photo contests or publications may have their own more restrictive rules, requiring model releases for *any* recognizable image of a person, whether it constitutes an endorsement or not.

Novocain · 12-10-2009, 10:24 AM

From a completely non-legal perspective, just because it's 'legal,' doesn't mean you shouldn't be courteous, especially the original question was about 'etiquette.' A little bit of respect and common sense goes a long way.

I also find that sometimes it's better if the subject can see you taking the photo, as opposed to sneaking around and looking shady. A little nod or smile afterward is often appreciated.

I would also discourage you from taking photos of illegal drug deals, no matter how public the setting may be

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-10-2009, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Of course, individual photo contests or publications may have their own more restrictive rules, requiring model releases for *any* recognizable image of a person, whether it constitutes an endorsement or not.

I think this last point is that part of the entry rules for the photo contest is that the contest holder is expecting unrestricted publishing rights for the use of the photo, and therefore if a person is recognizable, they require a release because they do not know the total use at the time of the contest

Wheatfield · 12-10-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by trod77

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...

Enter it and I hope you win something. It's a really good picture.
As long as the usage is non commercial, it shouldn't be an issue, though if you have to give up rights to the image as part of the contest, then technically you need a release.
Since the people are not recognizable, I wouldn't think anyone is going to give you any grief though.

trod77 · 12-10-2009, 11:17 AM

Again, thank you everyone for your responses. I really appreciate it.

And yes, I was also talking about etiquette. Say I see an old couple holding hands, walking a scenic walkway, would you ask them first to take that photo or just take it? Basically, I guess what I'm asking is, do you just shoot or do you ask before you take the shot?

potatolicious · 12-10-2009, 02:56 PM

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.

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-10-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by trod77

Again, thank you everyone for your responses. I really appreciate it.

And yes, I was also talking about etiquette. Say I see an old couple holding hands, walking a scenic walkway, would you ask them first to take that photo or just take it? Basically, I guess what I'm asking is, do you just shoot or do you ask before you take the shot?

every one will have a different take on this.

One thing to consider, regardless, is whether the two people are married to each other or not.

I think if you are taking the photo simply because you as a phoptographer like it, and do not plan to distribute it, you don't need a release, but if you plan to sell a recognizable likeness of anyone you need to think about your liability. You do not have unrestricted use of anyone's likeness for your profit.

Wheatfield · 12-10-2009, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by potatolicious

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.

This is where it's important to know local laws. You and the OP are both in the USA, which is good, your answer applies to the question.
Come to Canada, for example, and our defamation laws are somewhat different.
In Canada, the truth is an iron clad defense against defamation, so as long as you haven't Photoshopped the picture (ie: it is a true representation), then you are pretty safe from a defamation suit.
This is not to say that you can't be sued, but it means you have a pretty solid defense.
As my lawyer told me once though, a release is a shield, not a sword.

12-10-2009, 07:48 AM	#1
trod77 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: New York Posts: 10	Taking photos of People in public etiquette I often find myself "seeing" a photo moment of people just doing everyday stuff or subject but there's people in the view, but I never take it. First, I'm still very self-conscious about people seeing me take photos, but also I really don't know what the "rules" are when taking pictures of random strangers. Could someone kinda give me the etiquette's of what and to what not to do. Thanks. (Sorry if this is the wrong spot to start this thread, didn't know where else).

12-10-2009, 11:17 AM	#12
trod77 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: New York Posts: 10 Original Poster	Again, thank you everyone for your responses. I really appreciate it. And yes, I was also talking about etiquette. Say I see an old couple holding hands, walking a scenic walkway, would you ask them first to take that photo or just take it? Basically, I guess what I'm asking is, do you just shoot or do you ask before you take the shot? Last edited by trod77; 12-10-2009 at 11:23 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Etiquette for public shots	AutoEccentric	Photographic Technique	10	08-18-2010 03:56 AM
DC Police - Illegal to take photos of people or police in public	MRRiley	Photographic Technique	109	08-06-2010 10:46 AM
Candid Shots of People in Public	jaieger	Photographic Technique	1	07-12-2010 08:45 PM
Is it me or people are taking off?...	ilya80	General Talk	29	09-12-2009 06:26 PM
Shooting in Public Etiquette	deludel	General Talk	36	06-18-2008 04:04 AM

12-10-2009, 09:34 AM	#2
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Etiquette and what is legal are, perhaps, two different things. Since you are in the USA, USA laws apply. In a nutshell, you can photograph anything you like with the following provisions: You are in a publicly owned place and what you are photographing isn't a national security installation. There will be some exceptions to this, I am sure. Now, whether or not you are comfortable photographing random strangers is one thing and whether or not said random strangers object is something else, but the fact is, if a person is in public, they legally have no expectation of privacy and no right to demand that you not photograph them as long as you are not impeding them in any way. What you cannot do is sell said photographs without a model release, though you can publish said photographs as long as you aren't doing it commercially. Again, there will be some exceptions to this, so do some research yourself, and remember that legal advice gleaned from internet forums is always suspect.

12-10-2009, 09:37 AM	#3
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Generally, if you are in a public space and you can see them, you can photograph them. BUT it does'nt mean you can sell it. For that you need a release.

12-10-2009, 09:48 AM	#4
trod77 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: New York Posts: 10 Original Poster	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...

12-10-2009, 09:50 AM	#5
Jimmy DL Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 38	Originally posted by flyer Generally, if you are in a public space and you can see them, you can photograph them. BUT it does'nt mean you can sell it. For that you need a release. In sweden (my country) you can sell them as long as the purpose is art or journalism in some aspect. But you can´t use the images to sell something else, ie using them for commerial purposes without a release.

12-10-2009, 09:59 AM	#6
arbib Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Camby, Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 379	Originally posted by trod77 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... I don't think so.. I think in the US, there's needs to be a "Recognizable" part..Like the FACE that can Identify the people. In this example, they are so small, there is not enough detail to "Identify" them. But, read the rules and maybe ask a question or 2, to be on the safe side.

12-10-2009, 10:05 AM	#7
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	I would like to raise a couple of points here. First of all, there is a sticky thread on photographer's rights and laws in the *Gatherings, Events and Photo Trips* forum here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/gatherings-events-photo-trips/60281-photo...trictions.html where I encourage people to post links to relevant sites for specific countries / Locations and the laws and rights of photographers. Second: With respect to photographing in public. -As people have mentioned, this really does mean public property not just property open to the public, and there is a big difference. -Also, the need for a release is that people have to be recognizable, and the release is generally for use of the photo for the purpose of profit. The example shown here where people are not positively recognizable does not need a release. - News events do not require a release. - it is also important to note, that if the subject is NOT on public property and you are, the subject must be reasonably visible from public property to photograph it. This means you can't encroach on doorways, climb fences etc to get the photo, that is invasion of privacy. - you also need to consider copywrite in terms of use of images where trademarks or other protected images are visible in your image. This may include buildings, signs, or even re-staged images that someone else already took.

12-10-2009, 10:22 AM	#8
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Regarding publication of a photo: My understanding - based on a fair amount of reading, but no particular legal expertise on my part - is that in US, whether or not the use is for profit is not the issue as far as the law goes. It is whether the use implies an endorsement of any kind. That is, you can sell a print of a random person in public as a work of art, but you can't use that picture in an ad for, say, Viagra, without permission. There are also invasion of privacy issues, but they apply only to people with an expectation of privacy - eg, not in a public place, or making an effort to conceal themselves. And all of this only applies to images in which the subject is recognizable. Of course, individual photo contests or publications may have their own more restrictive rules, requiring model releases for any recognizable image of a person, whether it constitutes an endorsement or not.

12-10-2009, 10:24 AM	#9
Novocain New Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Pittsburgh PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 21	From a completely non-legal perspective, just because it's 'legal,' doesn't mean you shouldn't be courteous, especially the original question was about 'etiquette.' A little bit of respect and common sense goes a long way. I also find that sometimes it's better if the subject can see you taking the photo, as opposed to sneaking around and looking shady. A little nod or smile afterward is often appreciated. I would also discourage you from taking photos of illegal drug deals, no matter how public the setting may be

12-10-2009, 10:28 AM	#10
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Of course, individual photo contests or publications may have their own more restrictive rules, requiring model releases for any recognizable image of a person, whether it constitutes an endorsement or not. I think this last point is that part of the entry rules for the photo contest is that the contest holder is expecting unrestricted publishing rights for the use of the photo, and therefore if a person is recognizable, they require a release because they do not know the total use at the time of the contest

12-10-2009, 11:04 AM	#11
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by trod77 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... Enter it and I hope you win something. It's a really good picture. As long as the usage is non commercial, it shouldn't be an issue, though if you have to give up rights to the image as part of the contest, then technically you need a release. Since the people are not recognizable, I wouldn't think anyone is going to give you any grief though.

12-10-2009, 02:56 PM	#13
potatolicious Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Seattle Posts: 44	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.

12-10-2009, 04:07 PM	#14
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	Originally posted by trod77 Again, thank you everyone for your responses. I really appreciate it. And yes, I was also talking about etiquette. Say I see an old couple holding hands, walking a scenic walkway, would you ask them first to take that photo or just take it? Basically, I guess what I'm asking is, do you just shoot or do you ask before you take the shot? every one will have a different take on this. One thing to consider, regardless, is whether the two people are married to each other or not. I think if you are taking the photo simply because you as a phoptographer like it, and do not plan to distribute it, you don't need a release, but if you plan to sell a recognizable likeness of anyone you need to think about your liability. You do not have unrestricted use of anyone's likeness for your profit.

12-10-2009, 04:13 PM	#15
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by potatolicious 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. This is where it's important to know local laws. You and the OP are both in the USA, which is good, your answer applies to the question. Come to Canada, for example, and our defamation laws are somewhat different. In Canada, the truth is an iron clad defense against defamation, so as long as you haven't Photoshopped the picture (ie: it is a true representation), then you are pretty safe from a defamation suit. This is not to say that you can't be sued, but it means you have a pretty solid defense. As my lawyer told me once though, a release is a shield, not a sword.