[daniekr]

This is why I love reading this forum, so many helpful comments and answers!

I got a lot of good advice here, I'll try to get out photographing soon :-) Good comment about the legal part. I'll check it up in the Norwegian laws and see if there's anything I should know. Uploading pictures of people (with them in clear view, like the two girls) can surely upset someone if they discover it. What's the rule here, hope they don't - and delete immediately if asked?

We don't have an awful lot of public gatherings around here, but I'll definitely take my k-x with my new 50mm f1,7 out on new years eve and benefit from the good high-iso handling :-)

---

Last edited by daniekr; 12-30-2011 at 07:21 AM.

[magkelly]

It is one of the great ironies of my life that I absolutely love being behind a camera but not in front of one. I've been known to get testy if anyone even tries to take a pic of me with a cell phone. I absolutely HATE it. Always have, always will, but I love walking around doing street photography. If someone really hates me taking their pic though, I will delete it. I won't keep it no matter how good the shot. I'm too sensitive to their feelings on that one being photo-phobic myself. I've done a couple of pro shoots with other photographers of myself, but I own those pics and there are no others out there except government/school mug shots ones that I know of. I even have all my kid pics. My folks gave me the albums a few years ago. I handed over any of my siblings to them and I destroyed any copies of mine. I don't want them left behind me. Weird? Yeah, but that's the way I am. I just don't want to leave any images of me behind. I want what I see as a photographer to be left behind, my own photos, but not the ones of me.

[eddie1960]

It is one of the great ironies of my life that I absolutely love being behind a camera but not in front of one. I've been known to get testy if anyone even tries to take a pic of me with a cell phone. I absolutely HATE it. Always have, always will, but I love walking around doing street photography. If someone really hates me taking their pic though, I will delete it. I won't keep it no matter how good the shot. I'm too sensitive to their feelings on that one being photo-phobic myself. I've done a couple of pro shoots with other photographers of myself, but I own those pics and there are no others out there except government/school mug shots ones that I know of. I even have all my kid pics. My folks gave me the albums a few years ago. I handed over any of my siblings to them and I destroyed any copies of mine. I don't want them left behind me. Weird? Yeah, but that's the way I am. I just don't want to leave any images of me behind. I want what I see as a photographer to be left behind, my own photos, but not the ones of me.

the reason i'm on the camera side of the lens is I too hate having my picture shot. It's getting tough to control now days with the massive amount of unedited shots some people I know take at events and post to facebook. Drives me mad.

[bigdavephoto]

the reason i'm on the camera side of the lens is I too hate having my picture shot. It's getting tough to control now days with the massive amount of unedited shots some people I know take at events and post to facebook. Drives me mad.

And that brings up the question that daniker posted. When is a model release form needed and when not needed?

As far as I know, a release form is needed whenever you take a picture of a person (in public or private) if photo is going to be published. If said person is at a event that is open to the general public, then a MR form is not needed.

Since I am no expert in law, If I am wrong, just ignore me while I go hide under my rock.

[eddie1960]

And that brings up the question that daniker posted. When is a model release form needed and when not needed?

As far as I know, a release form is needed whenever you take a picture of a person (in public or private) if photo is going to be published. If said person is at a event that is open to the general public, then a MR form is not needed.

Since I am no expert in law, If I am wrong, just ignore me while I go hide under my rock.

Model releases are not needed for editorial use. If you want to use it for advertising though you will need model releases (and likely in many cases Property releases)


from the Wiki

Note that the photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but usually licenses the photograph to someone else to publish. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release because he is merely present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives him more opportunity to licence the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it. Unless a photo is actually published, the need (or use) of a model release is undefined. And, since some forms of publication typically do not require a model release (e.g., news articles and other editorial use), the existence (or non-existence) of a release is irrelevant.

but then

Photographers who also publish images need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release. Whether or not publishing a photo via the internet requires a release is currently[as of?] being debated in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is likely that any and all exposure to the public of unreleased photos via any vehicle will constitute civil liability for the photographer

.

So at some point once it's defined the street shots all over flickr and elsewhere may become problematic, unless of course you use them to illustrate editorial points in which case it's not required..... confusing isn't it

[Philoslothical]

For residents of Ontario, Canada (of which I've seen more than a few on the board here ) there's a very handy, printable PDF that summarizes photographers' rights.

http://www.oshawacameraclub.ca/references/ontphotogrights.pdf

The TL;DR of it is, if you can see it, you can shoot it, even including things like crimes, accidents, police, etc. There are a few exceptions, such as minors charged or convicted of crimes, people with reasonable expectation of privacy (no shooting through peoples' windows), and people endorsing a product (requires a release). Otherwise, it's pretty much fair game. I always keep a couple copies of this in my bag, both for people who might have misconceptions about the law, or for potential police harassment.

Digressing for a moment from shooting people, and more about shooting places, the law here in Ontario has an interesting limitation. Should one decide to trespass on private property for the purposes of photography, and not get caught, you can freely use those pictures if you sit on them for 6 months after the intrusion. A footnote for any urban explorer types.

[mysticcowboy]

Commercial vs. Editorial Use of Photographs of People
From Commercial vs. Editorial Use of Photographs of People by attorney Carolyn Wright. Her book Photographer's Legal Guide is excellent.

On 02.23.06, In Business, Photographer's Rights, Photography Not Allowed, Releases, Rights of Privacy/Publicity, by Carolyn E. Wright

"When photographers take photos of people, they must be careful to not “invade their privacy.” See my September 14 blog for more information. After the photo is taken, however, the photographer should be concerned about the person’s “rights of publicity.” You violate a person’s right of publicity when you take or use without permission a person’s photo for your own use or benefit. Editorial use of a photo is not considered a use of the person’s image for your own use or benefit. Commercial use is different. Commercial use clearly benefits the photographer, so you need the person’s consent to use their image. This normally is documented by a model release. But how do you tell the difference in the uses?

"Editorial use of a photograph is found in a newsworthy item. In those cases, the person’s right in the use of his image must be evaluated in light of constitutional interests. “Newsworthiness” is a First Amendment, freedom of the press, interest and is broadly construed. Courts traditionally have defined public interest or newsworthiness in liberal and far reaching terms. It is not limited to dissemination of news in the sense of current events, but extends far beyond that to include all types of factual, educational and historical data, or even entertainment and amusement, concerning interesting phases of human activity in general.

"Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used purely for “advertising purposes.” While the photograph of a person may be used for something that is sold for profit, such as in a book or a print, that is not the test for a commercial use. Instead, using a picture of a person without consent gives rise to a claim for violating the person’s right of publicity only when it injures the economic interests of the person due to commercial exploitation.

"In sum, if someone looking at a photograph would think that the person in it is promoting or endorsing a commercial product affiliated with the photograph, then the use is commercial. But since it sometimes is difficult to know if the use will be considered commercial or editorial, it’s always a safer to get the model release.
Take my advice; get professional help".

PhotoAttorney

[RioRico]

OP's question wasn't about legality, but about ethics and comfort. I see the question as being, how to get comfortable with people-shooting? How to desensitize shyness? Various approaches work, which I and others mentioned above, and which are discussed in past threads on street-shooting. The ethical discussions go all over the place, from never-shoot-without-permission to shoot-anyone-anytime-anywhere. I suspect that some ethics positions are also based on timidity.

Someone shooting commercially should definitely be familiar with the laws in their jurisdiction, should definitely use model releases -- that's just professionalism. Those of us shooting for joy or art or personal history or obsession or whatever, just need to work out our issues with ethics and timidity-vs-brazenness. That working-out might include classes | training | desensitization | role-playing | group therapy, whatever it takes to make one venture into public with a camera or three.

[bigdavephoto]

Yes the OP's first question was about ethics but the OP also brought up legality in post #16, if I remember the post numbers right.

[Lowell Goudge]

It here are some good points here. A long time ago I started a thread on photo rights and laws. I asked not for editorial comments or discussions, but a place to attach links to sites with laws etc., for specific geographical or political regions. I ask that all who have put links here find that site and copy the links.

As for Ontario Canada, yes there are a few of us members.

To the OP. I am glad you are asking and discussing before doing. Many times it is the other way around. One simple bit of advise, if you are uncomfortable, then something is telling you it is perhaps not what you should be doing.

[Philoslothical]

Rico, maybe you work differently, and that's OK, but I find it a lot easier to be comfortable doing something when I know beforehand that there is law supporting it. So, while bringing law into the discussion might be tangential, it's still very relevant to getting over the timidity you mention.

[Tippon]

You can now be arrested and have your photographic equipment seized for taking pictures of police officers in the UK... This apparently helps them fight terrorism... Although it's more likely that they keep getting 'caught' doing things they shouldn't be 'caught' doing...

Have you got any links to support that Dave? I'm not disputing it, I'm just a bit behind the times, and don't want to get caught out

[lamented bovine]

Throw on a Hi Vis Vest your luck may improve to get you into odd locations, worked for me. Never tried it in UK though their so parinoid.
Cheers
Macca

[RioRico]

Throw on a Hi Vis Vest your luck may improve to get you into odd locations, worked for me. Never tried it in UK though their so parinoid.

I've suggested this here-and-there. Look 'official'. A bright vest, a hard-hat, an ID tag, a clipboard, and a camera -- nobody notices, not in USA anyway. Doesn't have to be govt-official, just contractor-official is good enough. If anyone asks WHAT YOU DOING? you say WORKING and turn away.

[Clavius]

Taking photos of walking strangers is easy. Even if you're shy about it. You can always estimate their route and act like you're shooting something else. And when they eventually walk into your shot it's their own fault.