Street photography and law

You may inquire with the local law enforcement office, but rather than argue, just move on would be the easy way. (You cannot use the photos for other than your personal enjoyment...unless you could get the father figure to sign a release.) Or use a stronger telephoto lens.

There is no right answer. You have rights. The family in the park has rights.

Common curtsey would be to refrain from taking the picture if the family asks you.

I once witnessed a bizarre exchange in the Galleria shopping mall in Houston, TX. A guy with a 35mm camera taking pictures at the mall happened to get a pic or two of some Arab women (veils and all). Immediately several large men surrounded that guy, a hurried discussion ensued, a large wad of bills appeared and many were exchanged for the roll of film. The 'bodyguard' then pulled the film out of the canister, exposing it, then tossed it in a trash can.

Everyone went their separate ways. The scene was over in about a minute. If I had a camera I would have been tempted to shoot the interaction, but alas I was unarmed.

BTW, this was years ago, not recent.

For a fantastic and clear book on the law about taking photographs, I strongly recommend Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images by Krages. It doesn't cover the law about publishing photographs, but it's the best book of its kind (that I've found).

If you were in a public place (i.e. not private land) and you're not revealing private information about them, you're pretty much free to take whatever pictures you want... provided you're not using a 600mm lens to look through someone's bedroom window, or photographing a military installation, or a Superfund site, etc. Read the book... it will clear up a lot.

As for publishing those images, in many states you couldn't do so for commercial reasons without a release form. Note the words "many" and "commercial." I don't know about Minnesota, but here in Virginia, we do have a "right of publicity" law on the books (8.01-40, to be exact), so I'd need a release to use those photos in an advertisement, etc.

There are a ton of web sites on the publishing half of this topic, some accurate, some lousy. A good short summary is http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html.

Shopping malls are generally considered private property.

I'm no lawyer, but I've read up quite a bit on this, and one should be able to legally photograph anyone in public. Whether or not this is worth arguing about with unwilling subjects, other than in a potential newsworthy situation, is up to you.

My understanding is identical to Jeff's -- you've got the right to photograph people in public places, even if they object. And thank God that right exists, or e.g. we wouldn't have videotape of cops beating up unarmed citizens, just to cite a recent news event.

Wow,

Thanks for all the info, I will go to the book store right now and look for that book.

You guys have given me some great resources to start my look. I visited the minnesota law library site but I had too general of an ideal to search.

I agree, I am on public property and for the most part they encourage photography of the landscapes so why should people freak out? If someone asked me to stop or not take their pictures, of course I would stop right away and I did, but it was the arguement afterwards that got on my nerves. He said, because he was the first one to take his daughters picture he owns the copyright to her. My retort was "Actually sir, the hospital was the first one to take her picture so in your world THEY own the copyright. Also I would love to see a signed contract from her stating you "own" the copyrights." I left well enough alone and didnt take any, it was that exchange that upsetted me.

You can't copyright a person--you can only copyright specific creative works. As her guardian, he (or the mother) would need to sign a release allowing use of her image (if a release was even required for certain applications).

The guy had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

Congratulations, you've now encountered the most common source of trouble when photographing people in public: some guy with "alpha-male syndrome." Though I've had some people ask me to not photograph them, the only times I've encountered an aggressive attitude about it were from guys (usually ones in their 20s) who were with women.

Here is a case where I was being "asked" to leave a roller rink/ arcade by some guy and he made the shot!!

http://fullframeimages.com/ffi63.html

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills (at the top of my website it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being sued? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be afraid of then, right? Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states : Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING - When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed, and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think? "If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom) of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?. Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures, impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at intersections walking into convenience stores, etc... In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic “street photographers out there”? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn’t harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at any wedding, you would have to get a “model or other release” from the bride and groom, plus each family member or guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither'. So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk?

Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com