Reading mode: Light Dark

OT: Privacy issues posting people photos here?

Go to last post
I never said they were lesbians. I made no such assumption. For all I know, they are avid motocycle fans.
rhexis said:
if youre going to post a pic of two lesbians on a bike, the least
you could do is make sure they are at least somewhat attractive.
that reminds me of a joke:

Q: why should you never run over a lawyer on a bicycle?

A: it might be your bike.
Click to expand...
--
--
http://www.PatYuen.com
 
Guys like you who give bad advice are completely irresponsible. Do you also tell people how to do their own brain surgery?

You're not a lawyer. You're unqualified to give legal advice and you're breaking the law when you do so.

Stick to your day job.

--
Ambient light is the best light.
 
Assuming you're talking about a true public area, such as a park or sidewalk, the following analysis is valid. If its leased to a private entity or operated by a private company, they may have a greater ability to restrict your conduct.

As to this specific question about a public sidewalk, and this question only. When a fundamental consitutional right is at issue, in this case, the freedom of expression, a balancing test comes into play. Freedom of expression is an outgrowth of free speech.

The most likely interpretation is referred to as a strict scrutiny analysis. The law most be carefully tailored to address a legitimate state objective. In this case, that state objective is almost always soem type of police or security concern. The law at issue cannot be overbroad, so as to prohibit conduct which might otherwise be acceptable. Neither can it be vague, in that it might be susceptible to multiple interpretations.

It could also analyzed under a mid-level scrutiny analysis, which allows the government greater freedom in the breadth of the statute's reach.

The short answer to your question is, yes, they can create such a law. As to whether its lawful on a constitutional basis, that's a different story, which requires consideration of a lot of things.

Adding to this issue is the current political climate. Nutty laws like the Patriot Act, and ultra-conservative political appointees can skew constitutional law for years. It took 62 years for Brown vs. Board of Education to correct school segregation.

Eventually, the law corrects itself. And for our avocation, that's a good thing.

Ambient light is the best light.
 
You don't need model releases to publish pictures of people taken in public places. You only need them if the use is commercial in nature -- for example, in an advertisment. But for editorial, journalistic, or artistic purposes it's perfectly OK.

Street photography would be impossible otherwise.

Libel laws still apply, of course.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
You don't need model releases to publish pictures of people taken
in public places. You only need them if the use is commercial in
nature -- for example, in an advertisment. But for editorial,
journalistic, or artistic purposes it's perfectly OK.

Street photography would be impossible otherwise.

Libel laws still apply, of course.

Petteri
Click to expand...
--
Tom Drake
Suffolk UK

'The man who has never made a mistake has never made anything'
 
Gary HIggins said:
Guys like you who give bad advice are completely irresponsible. Do
you also tell people how to do their own brain surgery?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a good analogy.
Gary HIggins said:
You're not a lawyer. You're unqualified to give legal advice and
you're breaking the law when you do so.
Click to expand...
So sue me. Report me to the state bar.
Gary HIggins said:
Stick to your day job.
Click to expand...
This IS my day job for now. What's your day job? Oh yeah, you're a lawyer. Sorry about that.

--
Rick A. Diaz
http://www.mcjournalist.com
The image is everything.
My opinions are my own. I paid good money for them.
See my profile for equipment list.
 
Robert A said:
Well Rick, I'm not looking to debate you, but if I took a picture
of you eating a hotdog in front of a NYC street vendor from 15 feet
away, and a cop was standing nearby, what would you tell him, to go
and stop me?
Click to expand...
Those are not the circumstances of the original post on which my responses were based so why introduce them now?
Robert A said:
Assume further that that picture made it onto my noncommercial
photo sharing website. What would you base a legal claim on?

I think if you and I are standing in a public place, there is no
legal means by which you can stop me from taking your picture.
You, of course, can always walk away. That's your right.
Click to expand...
Robert, go back and look at what I've said in this thread. Read Gary's replies, as well. You seem to think your right to take a photo is absolute. It isn't. There are restrictions in some circumstances. The restrictions on what you do with the photo become even greater depending on usage. I can't make it any clearer than that. Either you go find info on what is and isn't legal or keep operating under the assumption that you can shoot and do as you please and you will eventually get burned.

--
Rick A. Diaz
http://www.mcjournalist.com
The image is everything.
My opinions are my own. I paid good money for them.
See my profile for equipment list.
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
You don't need model releases to publish pictures of people taken
in public places. You only need them if the use is commercial in
nature -- for example, in an advertisment. But for editorial,
journalistic, or artistic purposes it's perfectly OK.
Click to expand...
Petteri, the majority of the comments in this thread were based on the scenario presented in the OP. Not all of the replies related to the law but to the ethics of what was being asked. The subsequent post by the OP explaining the details more in depth have changed much of the perception created by the first post, but that doesn't render the opinions expressed on the OP any less valid. Sometimes it isn't just the law that controls what we do, but propriety and decency. Some photos are better left untaken and unshared.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Street photography would be impossible otherwise.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and that is an argument I've made in here many times.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Libel laws still apply, of course.
Click to expand...
You jerk! Just kidding. :)

--
Rick A. Diaz
http://www.mcjournalist.com
The image is everything.
My opinions are my own. I paid good money for them.
See my profile for equipment list.
 
how do you define right? Laws are in place to help with this definition.
Rick said:
Some people do the right thing just because it IS the right thing. They don't need the law to tell them that.
Click to expand...
--
-Who are the Chromats, and why are they aberrating?-
 
Shootin' from behind the alter was a favorite position when I did weddings so, yeah, I plead nolo contendre yer honor! Or. not guilty by reason of insanity for shootin' weddings at all... man thats hard work especially with a Bronica GS1 and Norman 200b on top!

At any rate, the photo in question was just a grab shot of a nice pose with a very full-featured but very non-pro 3.3mp camera. It wasn't untill I played around with it in PSP that it came alive. It is the pp that I would like to offer up for critique since I am still fairly new at that. The subjects liked it, my frieind liked it, I liked it (prejudicial witness I admit) so I'd like to hear testimoy from other photogs. We do live in an insanely letigious society so I approach certain things with caution but, always with integrity. "If'n you ain't got that, you ain't got nuthin"! I'll let ya'll know if and when I post it. This was a very fun thread... hope no one got hurt!

John
--

Great photographs are 90 percent serendipity and somtimes, 10 percent by design!
 
It always amazes me how the United States is the most beauracratic, red taped, look at someone the wrong way and get sued etc etc nation in the world. Oh how I love New Zealand. Can you do anything over there without the threat of legal action. It is almost like a police state efficiently kept in order by peopes greed, that must save the powers that be huge amounts of money letting people fight it out amongst themselves bwahahaha.

On a more serious note though what is it really like?, I dont live there how can I judge, I just have a picture in my mind of ambulance chasing lawyers brought about from watching too much television, and reading too much on the internet.
--
Art is in the eye of the beholder
My opinion is one of many, and probably differs greatly from the norm.

 
Gary HIggins said:
Guys like you who give bad advice are completely irresponsible. Do
you also tell people how to do their own brain surgery?

You're not a lawyer. You're unqualified to give legal advice and
you're breaking the law when you do so.

Stick to your day job.
Click to expand...
Now it's my turn to enter the fracas. It is NOT breaking the law to give legal advice if you are NOT a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, so I can give whatever advice I like, legal or otherwise, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
 
Richard Adams said:
It always amazes me how the United States is the most beauracratic,
red taped, look at someone the wrong way and get sued etc etc
nation in the world. Oh how I love New Zealand. Can you do anything
over there without the threat of legal action. It is almost like a
police state efficiently kept in order by peopes greed, that must
save the powers that be huge amounts of money letting people fight
it out amongst themselves bwahahaha.
On a more serious note though what is it really like?, I dont live
there how can I judge, I just have a picture in my mind of
ambulance chasing lawyers brought about from watching too much
television, and reading too much on the internet.
Click to expand...
Richard, I'm a Canadian living in Canada, and many of "us" feel the same as you concerning the United States. Fortunately for you, you live far enough away that your daily life isn't constantly breached by American issues. We do not have that freedom here. Well, that it, unless we keep the televisions and radios off, and we don't read any newspapers. They are highly litigious, and that can be a very bad thing at times.

Life is simple. It's only the choices we make that complicates it.
 
peteb said:
As for legal that depends on what you shot. If you take shots out
and about in public, or in your private life you can display them
as you see fit. You may not, however sell the image or the use of
the image for commercial purposes (meaning advertising, stock etc.)
unless you have a model release. If they were newsworthy you could
sell them to a newspaper or magazine (if you are lucky ;o) since
they weould be editorial news usage, not ctraight commercial.
Click to expand...
What about the Paparazzi? They take pictures of other people, sell them at will, and never get sued. How do you explain that? Curious.
 
peterbeyer58 said:
What about the Paparazzi? They take pictures of other people, sell
them at will, and never get sued. How do you explain that?
Curious.
Click to expand...
That was right in the post to which you replied:
peterbeyer58 said:
peterbeyer58 said:
If they were newsworthy you could
sell them to a newspaper or magazine (if you are lucky ;o) since
they weould be editorial news usage, not ctraight commercial.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's what paparazzi do. Celebrities are newsworthy, ergo, photographs of celebrities are newsworthy too. Freedom of the press doesn't discriminate between scuzzy celebrity gossip and lofty investigative journalism (good thing too IMO).

But try to put that paparazzi shot of Madonna in an underwear advertisement, and you'd have so many lawyers hit you faster than you can say "subpoena."

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
Moondawg said:
Whoa! Nellie... seems I stirred the hornets nest. That was not my
intention. I would like to clear up some facts here though. This
was not a wedding. It was an engagment photo shoot in a public
park here in Colorado Springs. My young friend is very new to
photography and knowing I did weddings and potraiture (including
his senior photos) on a part time basis for many years, asked me to
come along to "assist". Of course I brought my trusty Oly C3000
just in case. Glad I did. He introduced me to the couple, I
explained why I was there and they were more that fine to have my
experience on hand for posing, lighting and suggestions. My friend
learned a lot but many of his photos were less than expected due to
lack of experience with his camera (35mm film). I was particulary
pleased with one shot I set up and the one they liked came from my
little camera. I was playing around with image and added some
enhancements in pp in Paint Shop Pro and it really worked. It was
not work for hire so I don't see that as an issue. My concern
would be someone lifting that image and having it show up in print
somewhere. I recently read an article about that happening. I was
a member of PPofA ten years ago. I hope that helps everyones
understanding. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one
is looking, so I will probably seek their permission befor posting
this image. This is wonderful forum... enhanced by the give and
take.
John
Click to expand...
John, I'm curious about one little thing. Why do you keep putting the word "assist" in quotation marks? Either you assisted, or you didn't. Unless, of course, you really don't mean "assist" in the true definition of the word.
 
post them, it's no big deal. folks here are making mountains out of this. the subjects will likely never ever find out and even if they do, so what, just take down the hosted photo if they ask...otherwise the results could get ugly, but even then....doubtful as it's unlikely anyone is going to sue for a photo on the web that does no harm. taking the time to do so is alone too costly for most.

I post photos of others all the time and have yet to hear one peep.

Enjoy the debates and have fun !

--
-tim
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top