Gioradan: Many thanks for your positive comments. I do not carry a model release form with me.One of the obvious reasons is that I do not want people to know that they have been photographed. One other aspect is that most people I photograph do not read or write english and that will make the model release legally worthless.The two key issues for publishing this type of images are in the titling and use of the image.You can use images like this for news type publishing in digital, printed and broadcasted media. But anything promoting a commercial entity under ( say) the dart throwing monk is a no go zone. When it comes to titles, make sure that the title does not pass judgement that you cannot backup. Something like “The boatman preferred being photographed with brand X...” can put you in the deep end of a law suit, and will be a sure way to be dumped by that brand from any future engagements.I hope it helpsGiora
I thought, this might be misleading, but my post was too long already ;)Of course there are public events, where the main subject is the people participating. Like the public halloween-party-example in another comment, riots, city-marathon and so on. There the public interest to be informed is weighed higher than the personal rights of the participants, as long as you're not misrepresenting them (so that is actually an exception for journalsm.).There will often be recognizable "innocent bystanders" on this sort of picture, or it is of interest to document, that there are visitors and that they are exited etc. But this doesn't give you the right to publish for example a series of visitors portraits, where the event itself is not even visible anymore.Obviously there are a lot of grey zones, where no swiss court has ever defined the exact borders. As far as I know, there is no distinction between professional photographers, doing their work and amateurs.
I'm a little surprised that the laws in the US should be less strict than here in Switzerland... If I interpreted everything right, in Switzerland there is no general exception for journalistic or artistic use, it still depends on what the picture is about. If the person is the main subject of the picture, as in the posted examples, it would be a no-go to publish them anywhere (no, not even in your online-gallery or a forum) without their consent. The only exception is to "people of common interest" (celebrities). And in the documentary of a PUBLIC event you only get away with "recognizable" persons, if they are not the main subject.
Sad enough for the genre of street photography, I think. But beeing it like it is, ignoring this while visiting other countries where "people don't read or write english" smells just a little like exploitation. Is it ok, just because the particular country might not have the same protection of personal rights yet? Hm...
Same here. I got confused between my understanding of the challenge and many (nice) pictures that are more portrait-like. So I did not vote at all in this challenge. Additionally to what you say about voters, I wonder why hosts don't disqualify more often. Even if it is a very good or apealing picture (like the winner here).
Ooops. Your right. Sorry!
Please don't be offended. It is really a nice picture and obviously not only I thought that. But I'm still trying to grasp how challenges work here, rules, voting and all.
I like the picture, but it is posed. There is no paparazzo IN the picture.
...said: no mirrors.