-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Photography etiquette
- Thread starter BP47794
- Start date
Brian D. Schneider
Veteran Member
Generally speaking,anyone in a public place is fair game.
But be carefull how you use the pictures.
Brian D. Schneider
Veteran Member
BTW, nice name!
Laws and perceptions about what's permissible vary from country to country (this is the WORLD wide web), but in countries like the US, as long as you're in a public place you generally are free to shoot what you want. Common decency and courtesy should dictate what's appropriate and what's not; basically, do onto others as you'd have them...
Photographing strangers in public places can be one of the most difficult and challenging things in photography for many of us. The rewards can be tremendous...look at the pages of National Geographic as one example. Each of us has to decide what's the best approach to strangers, when it's appropriate to shoot and when you should leave the camera at your side, and in your own conscience determine what's your motivation for taking the picture in the first place. To me, decency (there's that word again) has to be your guide...every one of us can think of obvious situations we've seen or been in ourselves where it simply would have been offensive for a stranger to just start snapping pictures. At the same time -- in the USA, at least -- if you're in a public place like the street or a public park, you absolutely have the same right to take a picture as you do to take in air.
Briefly, one thing I've found that makes this kind of shooting of strangers in public at least a little easier is to find situations where people get together to have fun, whether it's at an amusement park, a block party, an outdoor antique car show, etc. Generally, people are more at ease, less "curious" about someone with a camera and what their motivation for taking their picture might be, and even more distracted by all the fun they're having and less likely to concentrate on you and your camera.
I'm assuming, of course, that you're actually trying to photograph a person or persons as the main subject in a photo. If you're in a public place and shooting a building or a scene that's clearly visible from where you're standing and someone happens to be walking by, then I wouldn't worry for a minute about TAKING a picture (you've got as much right to take a photo in a public place in the USA as the person on the sidewalk across the street has to be there).
Of course, what you DO with the photo (as mentioned by another post) is critical -- basically, at least in the USA, you can't use someone's recognizable likeness in an image that's used for any form of commercial promotion or advertising, at least not without either paying them, or setting yourself up to be sued and paying them that way if they see themselves in print or web advertising. If a shot is used for purposes that are clearly informative or educational in some way, and the shot and any accompanying text or caption does not libel the subject, then you're generally OK. So that wide-angle shot you take on vacation of the Empire State Building in New York with all the passers-by in the foreground is fine as long as it stays in the family album, and is also fine if you sell it to National Geographic for a story they're doing about 1930s architecture in New York, or to Popular Photography magazine for an article they're doing about candid photography. It's not so fine to sell it to Apple Computer to use to promote the new Apple Store that's opening in New York, or to Minolta to advertise a wide-angle lens, or to sell to a concrete manufacturer to advertise the benefits of concrete construction.
I'm sure others have differing opinions, and I'd be very interested to hear what the perceptions and thoughts are of folks in this forum from countries other than the USA. This is my two pence worth.
Cheers!
John Howes
Member
As a former photojournalist, I can affirm that this is true from a legal standpoint. In general, if you take the pictures in a public place for editorial or personal purposes there is no problem. If you use them for commercial purposes, like advertising or stock photos, you need to have a release from the subjects.
This explanation, of course, doesn't address the etiquette question. When I am photographing people in public, I don't try to be sneaky about it. Make it clear that you are taking pictures of them and be friendly. Most people don't seem to mind, but you have to be sensitive to their reactions. Sometimes they ask me why I am taking pictures of them. I tell them the truth about how I plan to use the pictures and if they tell me to stop, I stop. Like any other question of etiquette it comes down to this: if you are causing other people some discomfort, stop what you are doing and work it out with them. Most of the time you end up with better pictures as well.
John
BeanCounter
Senior Member
Brian,
here's an example.....
I took some images of my family at an ice cream store this past week.
We were all sitting down at tables in an outside closed off place where you buy your ice cream and can sit and eat it.
When I took only one image, some woman sitting directly behind our table, looked over and gave me a really bad stare - like "i'm in your picture, you never asked me" - if looks could kill.
I really felt daggers coming from her, and I've seen this before, when taking pictures - some people just do not like being in a photo, and I try not to do it.
One of my friends a long time ago was video taping, and a couple walked by, - the guy took off in a flying rage, swearing at my friend, - I swear - I thought the guy was going to take the video camera and smash it on the ground.
These days, you never know what you are going to encounter. - If you take images of your subjects, and take them with people in close proximity in the background, be ready for an encounter... that's all I can say.
Meet the wrong person, and your cam could go flying or worse.
Mark
here's an example.....
I took some images of my family at an ice cream store this past week.
We were all sitting down at tables in an outside closed off place where you buy your ice cream and can sit and eat it.
When I took only one image, some woman sitting directly behind our table, looked over and gave me a really bad stare - like "i'm in your picture, you never asked me" - if looks could kill.
I really felt daggers coming from her, and I've seen this before, when taking pictures - some people just do not like being in a photo, and I try not to do it.
One of my friends a long time ago was video taping, and a couple walked by, - the guy took off in a flying rage, swearing at my friend, - I swear - I thought the guy was going to take the video camera and smash it on the ground.
These days, you never know what you are going to encounter. - If you take images of your subjects, and take them with people in close proximity in the background, be ready for an encounter... that's all I can say.
Meet the wrong person, and your cam could go flying or worse.
Mark
Great info. Thanks everyone.
Anyone else have any encounters to tell us about?
Brian M.,
As a current (freelance) photojournalist and shooting 95%
news items which includes the usual shots of both "shooting and
stabbing victims and suspects" as well as other unpleasant sit-
uations such as "mva's, ped's struck (adults & kids), demonstrat-
ions and riots.
And, in all these situations, I have never had my camera gear
thrashed. I have been cursed at, yelled at and even had some
kid offer to teach me how I could use my "bum" as a new carrying
case for my lens.
What I'm saying is that if you are taking pictures of people in a
public place there is not much they can do unless perhaps the
photo is published with an unflattering or incorrectly inferred
cutline. Example: I take a picture of your wife/sister/mother
who is tired and leaning against a lamp post/hydro/
telephone pole and the caption in the paper reads
" Hookers invade ???? area."
In this situation, the above-mentioned women would/should
go after the publication/photographer.
In the situation you describe, the lady has no leg to stand on unless
you sell the photo to the newspaper who use it with the caption
"Hookers working ice-cream stands".
Just to change the scenario, I also do "feature shots" which are
generally "people(adults&kids) enjoying themselves in variety of
(fun/legal) activities. Now, for these shots I always get people's
names and let them know where the photos "MAY" run and if
they would rather not have the photo published---for whatever
reason--- then it does not get published. I may make a print
for them and then, in some cases, they give permission to have
the photo published.
Also, if there are children involved be very careful and in 99.9%
of the situations I always ask permission before I even take my
camera out of my (regular) camera bag or raise it to my eye.
And, as for just cruising around taking pictures of people, places,
and things I generally just take the picture if I think it is an interesting
scene.
Hope this helps and you are still awake after all this.
Cameras & Cocktails,
JRS
If you are in doubt, contact your local newspaper photogs/editors
or check out: http://www.nppa.com which is the National Press Photo-
graphers Association.
As a current (freelance) photojournalist and shooting 95%
news items which includes the usual shots of both "shooting and
stabbing victims and suspects" as well as other unpleasant sit-
uations such as "mva's, ped's struck (adults & kids), demonstrat-
ions and riots.
And, in all these situations, I have never had my camera gear
thrashed. I have been cursed at, yelled at and even had some
kid offer to teach me how I could use my "bum" as a new carrying
case for my lens.
What I'm saying is that if you are taking pictures of people in a
public place there is not much they can do unless perhaps the
photo is published with an unflattering or incorrectly inferred
cutline. Example: I take a picture of your wife/sister/mother
who is tired and leaning against a lamp post/hydro/
telephone pole and the caption in the paper reads
" Hookers invade ???? area."
In this situation, the above-mentioned women would/should
go after the publication/photographer.
In the situation you describe, the lady has no leg to stand on unless
you sell the photo to the newspaper who use it with the caption
"Hookers working ice-cream stands".
Just to change the scenario, I also do "feature shots" which are
generally "people(adults&kids) enjoying themselves in variety of
(fun/legal) activities. Now, for these shots I always get people's
names and let them know where the photos "MAY" run and if
they would rather not have the photo published---for whatever
reason--- then it does not get published. I may make a print
for them and then, in some cases, they give permission to have
the photo published.
Also, if there are children involved be very careful and in 99.9%
of the situations I always ask permission before I even take my
camera out of my (regular) camera bag or raise it to my eye.
And, as for just cruising around taking pictures of people, places,
and things I generally just take the picture if I think it is an interesting
scene.
Hope this helps and you are still awake after all this.
Cameras & Cocktails,
JRS
If you are in doubt, contact your local newspaper photogs/editors
or check out: http://www.nppa.com which is the National Press Photo-
graphers Association.
Kevin Bjorke32030
Leading Member
...well, it 95% of the circumstances.
If you're shooting people and have no respect for them, that's a pretty powerful circumstance in itself. Make the shot show it.
But if you do have respect for people, the shot can show that too. So go ahead! You can always delete it.
If you're shooting people and have no respect for them, that's a pretty powerful circumstance in itself. Make the shot show it.
But if you do have respect for people, the shot can show that too. So go ahead! You can always delete it.
Barry53866
Member
What about pictures of objects? I have a great shot of a boat with its name running right in the picture. Can that be used commercially without getting an ok form the boat's owner?
Barry
Kevin Bjorke32030
Leading Member
Almost certainly, unless it's a very uniquely-designed boat and the design is the specific subject of the photo (this has been a bone of contention w.r.t. some buildings -- one that springs to mind it the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame -- where the owners claimed a financial interest in all photos containing the design of their building. I don't recall if courts have upheld such notions -- property rights shouldn't include lines of sight outside of the property line, IMO)
Of course, if your definition of "used commercially" is to use the photo for an auction on ebay, then yes, getting the owner's permission would be a good idea
kb
Jeroen H29622
Leading Member
I have found my G1 a powerful instrument in meeting new and interesting people. I have had quite a few stuations in which I took somebody's picture, asked him/her his/her e-mail adress and mailed the picture(s) I took to them. I think it's important to actually DO mail the pics, and not break you promise.
I've been e-mailing with some ppl I met while on several holidays ever since my first digicam. I don't use my pics for commercial use, just for my personal collection (6000+ pics).
I do feel somewhat hesitant sometimes, when I see that a person is going to be prominently in a shot, and then I usually wait until that person is gone (if the subject is something other than the person) or I toss a coin between taking his/her picture covertly or asking permission Usually I ask permission, there's only so much you can do with a 105mm lens :-
Jeroen
http://autorai2001.dhs.org
Cool pics of sports cars, taken with a G1.
I've been e-mailing with some ppl I met while on several holidays ever since my first digicam. I don't use my pics for commercial use, just for my personal collection (6000+ pics).
I do feel somewhat hesitant sometimes, when I see that a person is going to be prominently in a shot, and then I usually wait until that person is gone (if the subject is something other than the person) or I toss a coin between taking his/her picture covertly or asking permission
Usually I ask permission, there's only so much you can do with a 105mm lens :-Jeroen
http://autorai2001.dhs.org
Cool pics of sports cars, taken with a G1.
Barry53866
Member
Thanks Kevin -Of course, if your definition of "used commercially" is to use the
photo for an auction on ebay, then yes, getting the owner's
permission would be a good idea
The boat is a boat; a nice boat though. My concern was the name so prominent in the shot. What's interesting about the shot is neither the shot nor the boat but what I digitally did to make the pic unusual - I used invert in Corel Photo Paint and it's quite interesting. Looks more like an Art Deco poster than a pic. I'm new to dig photography so I don't think this one will go to E-Bay though I did call the boat owners to see if they were interested.
Barry
I've seen postcards with the whole city in it... it would have been a nightmare to pay royalty to the owner of every building visible in the picture!
Michael
Michael
Almost certainly, unless it's a very uniquely-designed boat and the
design is the specific subject of the photo (this has been a bone
of contention w.r.t. some buildings -- one that springs to mind it
the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame -- where the owners claimed a
financial interest in all photos containing the design of their
building. I don't recall if courts have upheld such notions --
property rights shouldn't include lines of sight outside of the
property line, IMO)
Of course, if your definition of "used commercially" is to use the
photo for an auction on ebay, then yes, getting the owner's
permission would be a good idea
kb
Mike Siesel
Forum Enthusiast
This subject came up last summer and a professional photographer advised a release. Property rights include images, and while he couldn't name anyone being sued, he was convinced it was a possibility. Now when he shoots a barn or farm house he gets a release. Better than hiring a lawyer I guess.
ms
ms
Thanks Kevin -Of course, if your definition of "used commercially" is to use the
photo for an auction on ebay, then yes, getting the owner's
permission would be a good idea
The boat is a boat; a nice boat though. My concern was the name so
prominent in the shot. What's interesting about the shot is
neither the shot nor the boat but what I digitally did to make the
pic unusual - I used invert in Corel Photo Paint and it's quite
interesting. Looks more like an Art Deco poster than a pic. I'm
new to dig photography so I don't think this one will go to E-Bay
though I did call the boat owners to see if they were interested.
Barry
Hi Kevin,
Well, I can't delete it actually, I would have destroy the print which
I would be willing to do. The neg, however, is another matter entire-
ly.
As for respect for the people I'm shooting, sometimes it is very
hard to have respect for a guy who has stolen a car and while
being persued by the police rams a young family's mini-van
leaving the mom and daughter in the hospital for several months.
The driver, of the stolen car, was led away from the carnage with
out a scratch....literally. The drivers (girl) friend's face was covered
in blood after smashing into the windscreen.
The photo editor, of the paper, said the photos submitted were
very graphic and I just told him that as graphic as the pictures were,
they summed up the scene and I just couldn't get a nice picture of
anyone at the scene. Nobody seemed to be in a smiling mood!
BTW, as much as I tried I just couldn't respect the driver of the
stolen car nor his (girl)friend who was caught in the same situation
about two(2) weeks later only this (different) guy did not ram into
a van containing family. He just stopped for the cops.
I apologise for not being able to paint a prettier picture but I know,
as a fellow photographer, you probably wouldn't respect me for
glossing over the truth.
Regards,
JRS
Kevin Bjorke32030
Leading Member
Well for digital, you're neg-free.
Exactly -- and so no one would expect that your shot should portray this scumbo with even a shred of dignity.
The innocent victims, however... while the shooter may have a duty to perform w.r.t. "telling the news" and fulfilling the goals of an assigned shoot, it's quite reasonable to hope that the victims were treated with some sympathetic respect despite their horrific circumstance. Unless there were some greater purpose in play (say, a story on the public havoc inflicted by illegal auto racing or high-speed police chases), I doubt a photo editor would run such material.
I think the original poster meant more prosaic circumstances, however -- on the bus, at the park, etc.
kb
http://www.botzilla.com/
http://www.finalfantasy.com/
Dick S
Leading Member
Hi Y'all
I agree with the guidelines in this thread---
However, it you are serious about this stuff get the $1 mil general liability rider on your homeowners policy. It isn't that many $$ and will lower your auto insurance also (if with the same co). I've been at this game for awhile and have only been sued once (oops make that twice if you consider my ex filing for divorce!!!).
I witnessed a multiple victim accident and had my trusty Yashica T4 with me and shot a full roll. One photo was of the female (definitely not a lady) who caused the accident and was later convicted of DUI and other charges.
She had a cigarette dangling out of her mouth, beautiful tatoos, pierced nose et. al. and was using one hand to fix/straighten her hair and the other to fix/straighten her bra while the fire paramedics were working on her young daughter. She obviously was unconcerned--this all was in the photo with the ambulance that had just arrived. Photo ran in a small but daily paper with the caption "Caring mother worries about daughter"
I got sued big time but the suit was thrown out and I never had to appear--insurance co. handled everything.
Regards
**** S
P.S. NEVER NEVER NEVER give your original roll to the cops---you will NEVER NEVER NEVER get it back!!!!!!!!!
I agree with the guidelines in this thread---
However, it you are serious about this stuff get the $1 mil general liability rider on your homeowners policy. It isn't that many $$ and will lower your auto insurance also (if with the same co). I've been at this game for awhile and have only been sued once (oops make that twice if you consider my ex filing for divorce!!!).
I witnessed a multiple victim accident and had my trusty Yashica T4 with me and shot a full roll. One photo was of the female (definitely not a lady) who caused the accident and was later convicted of DUI and other charges.
She had a cigarette dangling out of her mouth, beautiful tatoos, pierced nose et. al. and was using one hand to fix/straighten her hair and the other to fix/straighten her bra while the fire paramedics were working on her young daughter. She obviously was unconcerned--this all was in the photo with the ambulance that had just arrived. Photo ran in a small but daily paper with the caption "Caring mother worries about daughter"
I got sued big time but the suit was thrown out and I never had to appear--insurance co. handled everything.
Regards
**** S
P.S. NEVER NEVER NEVER give your original roll to the cops---you will NEVER NEVER NEVER get it back!!!!!!!!!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum