will I get in trouble

Craig Gillette · Jun 22, 2009

sledzik102 said:
I was invited by friend to grade 8 school graduation to take pictures
of her son (Nikon D700, flash bracket couple of lenses).

That's OK.

sledzik102 said:
People right away assumed that I was a hired professional and start
asking me for taking pictures of their children, and I was happy to
do so…

So you branched out from your informal contract and began shooting others. Can we assume you intend to rebate the fee to the original hiring party?

sledzik102 said:
Overall I took 700 raw pictures. Groups, families, friends and
everybody.
Telling people that they can buy them from my smug mug page and gave
about 80 business cards.

If I'm shooting for a friend or family member (and I'm an amateur) I don't shoot lots of others and pass out business cards. That sounds a lot like running a business.

sledzik102 said:
Then the principal of the school came to me asking if I would not
sell the pictures. It would be very embarrassing for the school…I
don’t know what he meant…

It's an idiomatic expression. He doesn't have the time or the desire to have you escorted out or arrested at that time, he's too busy.

sledzik102 said:
That he understood that I was hired by one
of the parents but I have no right to make business there and that I
could give the pictures for free…other wise he will contact his
lawyers if I will try to sell them…

As the school administrator, he's likely very well informed as to his responsibilities under the local laws and policies regarding use of school facilities for private business activities.

sledzik102 said:
Well what shall I do ???

Quite the dilemma isn't it. If you advertise them for sale, it certainly would support his assumption that you were running a business on school property without permits, etc. I doubt it would get to the point you were prosecuted for it though.

sledzik102 said:
Parents asking me for the pictures…I guess I can’t put them on the
internet.

Sure you can. Editorial use is protected under the 1st Amendment (in the US).

sledzik102 said:
Shall I give them for free by E-mail and treat this as experience and
advertisement.

Sharing them would avoid the legal issues you might incur from selling them. Selling them doesn't require a release and would be legal, much like a newspaper selling it's papers. Your problems, if any, are from conducting business on the school property. It's as if you were a florist and were hired to provide leis for a couple of kids and brought a trunk full more along and sat in the school parking lot selling them to all comers.

sledzik102 said:
Is this going to hurt mybussiness?

Well, you won't make any money giving away what you could sell. You also have the problem that if you were to approach the district or school in the future, you might have this incident to get past.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that there was a contract with a local pro to shoot the graduation and the school is obliged to protect that contract. Much like a sports shooter can expect the hiring organization to protect that contract or a wedding pro would be able to insist on the B&G/family to assist in having a wandering "professional" who crashed the wedding and reception and began shooting to be excluded.

While there are rights when it comes to expression and taking and even selling editorial imaging, property owners, businesses and individuals also have rights.

Timberwolfpuppy · Jun 22, 2009

Bill McLeod said:
Timberwolfpuppy said:

Don't forget the children's right to privacy. You cannot single out
a person who is in public and photograph them. You can photograph a
group of people in public. If they are a celebrity, then you can
photograph them singularly in public. If i am wrong here, I want
others to correct me.

Click to expand...

Every time you post here I become a little more embarrassed for you.

Bill, your response has been met with good answers. Read them, remember them. Here in America celebrities can be photographed in public. They can be singled out in public. Look at the magazines for examples.

A child in a school is under protection of the principal. Here in San Francisco, any adult can be considered a tresspasser for walking on the grounds of a High School and simply walking the halls let alone photographing people. How do I know? Well, I saw some people seated in a friendly way on the steps of a High School here. I had nothing to do, and I saw it as an opportunity to see a very old High School. I walked into the hallways to look at pictures of previous graduates of the school that went back to 1927 and perhaps earlier. I noticed the fashion styles of the previous students. It was a Saturday, and school is not in session. I was surrounded by about 20 other adults. I was asked to take the test. What test? They said I had to leave if I wasn't going to take a test the others were there to take in English teaching. What? I was there to look at pictures. I was told to leave immediately. I did.

This is life in the City.

If the principal tells you to stop doing something on the grounds of the school, you had better listen to him/her.

Bill McLeod said:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

4my2kids · Jun 22, 2009

You all seemed to skip his post that read:

The school is private and charge the parents $1300 a month for tuition. Shame for not hiring a pro.

Therefore, it is NOT a public place and sounds like he went with the assumption these parents have bucks and had every intention on doing business and making a profit. Therefore, he should have asked permission from the school before the graduation.

Bill McLeod · Jun 22, 2009

JJ Simpson said:
What sort of country allows the the general public to waltz into a
'Government' school (or any school for children) and start taking
pictures to sell on the 'internet'? Surely those students weren't
'in' public if they were on the school grounds.

The 'parent' has no authority or jurisdiction to give such permission
for a photographer to earn money from students.

Government is not the same as public.... (gawd, even an Aussie knows
that )

Read the thread. I told the OP that the principal had the right to restrict him. Then I replied to Timberwolfpuppy's post that you could not take pictures of individual people in public due to their right of privacy. Try to keep up, or at least read the posts before you reply.

Bill McLeod · Jun 22, 2009

Timberwolfpuppy said:
Bill, your response has been met with good answers. Read them,
remember them. Here in America celebrities can be photographed in
public. They can be singled out in public. Look at the magazines
for examples.

A child in a school is under protection of the principal. Here in
San Francisco, any adult can be considered a tresspasser for walking
on the grounds of a High School and simply walking the halls let
alone photographing people. How do I know? Well, I saw some people
seated in a friendly way on the steps of a High School here. I had
nothing to do, and I saw it as an opportunity to see a very old High
School. I walked into the hallways to look at pictures of previous
graduates of the school that went back to 1927 and perhaps earlier.
I noticed the fashion styles of the previous students. It was a
Saturday, and school is not in session. I was surrounded by about 20
other adults. I was asked to take the test. What test? They said I
had to leave if I wasn't going to take a test the others were there
to take in English teaching. What? I was there to look at pictures.
I was told to leave immediately. I did.

This is life in the City.

If the principal tells you to stop doing something on the grounds of
the school, you had better listen to him/her.

I understand totally that the principal can restrict and ban anyone he wants to. In fact that is what I told the original poster. This is what I was replying to in your post:

"You cannot single out a person who is in public and photograph them. You can photograph a group of people in public. If they are a celebrity, then you can photograph them singularly in public. If i am wrong here, I want others to correct me."

You can single out anyone you like in public and photograph them. I am correcting you like you asked. In fact, you can photograph minor children if they really are in public too.

My wife is a teacher. I have heard of principals and the school board giving trespass warnings to disruptive parents, businesses soliciting, and anyone else trying to access the property.

To everyone else correcting me...try to follow the posts. I was only writing about Timberwolfpuppy's ridiculous assertion that you can't photograph someone by themselves in public.

Strannik · Jun 23, 2009

Talk to the principal, apologize, offer his school a cut. If he says "no deal" then contact the parents and let them know that you are unable to process the pictures due to the position of the school principal on this issue. Mention you offered the school a cut but that offer was declined. Let them (the rich folks who can afford 1200 per month for the school and ended up without a school photog on a graduation day) deal with the principal. He might reconsider. If he does - get something in writing confirming his authorization.

I would not release the pics for free - you never know what kind of consequences you will be dealing with later on. You don't need any additional headache without getting paid.

In any event, try to learn from this experience. Doing unauthorized business on private grounds is never a good thing.

Ian Eisenberg · Jun 23, 2009

I can give you an answer from a slightly different perspective.

I am no longer a pro photographer ( I used to be, but I am primarily an animator and educator), but I still have a passion for everything from candids to sports to studio work.

I am also the vice-president of the PTSA at my daughter's middle school. Recently I offered to shoot small group shots of award winners for a school event. I set up lights and did an OK job at it. I was constrained by the area I had to shoot in and the time for set up and posing.

Throughout the event I was approached by parents and asked for quick portrait shots with their kids. There were also a few parents who were VERY leery of my shooting. I handed out business cards and explained that I was not making any money from the shot and the images were all going to be posted to a secure website where the images could be downloaded for free or printed for a minimal cost. I used smugmug and put no markup on the printing.

I had the cooperation of the administration and there was an announcement made at the event AND an email was sent to parents. Still I am getting emails from parents who are expressing concerns about my motives, the accessibility of the images and so on.

So ultimately yes, there are issues that the principle will have to deal with. You not speaking to him or the administration in advance places them in a difficult position. Ultimately he is just doing what he needs to do to protect their position.

Nikoneer · Jun 23, 2009

I would put a notice on your web page to the effect that you are unable to supply any of the photographs you took, as the principle of the school has warned you not to.

If the fee paying parents question why there was not a pro in place for the graduation, he may be forced to reconsider or just lose face with the kids parents.

--

'The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila'

Timberwolfpuppy · Jun 23, 2009

Nikoneer said:
I would put a notice on your web page to the effect that you are
unable to supply any of the photographs you took, as the principle of
the school has warned you not to.

Nikoneer is advising you to backstab the principal, and to do it in a cowardly way at that.

Don't take his advice. If the parents question why there was not a pro in place, they can call the principal themselves. You, the unauthorized, nearly tresspassing photographer should not become a vigilante and start to ruin the principal's reputation for protecting the children via his normal rules. No, don't try to make the principal "lose face" or embarrass the principal. The principal was not approached by a true professional with a business deal to photograph the kids. Don't "force him to reconsider" by trying to embarrass him. Nikoneer gives unprofessional advice here. I would expect his next piece of advice is to tell you to rant and start crying on the sidewalk while you carry a sign that says, "The principal would not allow me to run a business on his premises".

Nikoneer said:
If the fee paying parents question why there was not a pro in place
for the graduation, he may be forced to reconsider or just lose face
with the kids parents.

--
'The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other
invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila'

iMac therefore iAm · Jun 25, 2009

That's like "sort of pregnant". You either are or you aren't. Up until the time the principal spoke to him he was fine. If he continued to shoot and do business afterwards, then he was trespassing.

Bottom line:

The principal was accepting that one family hired him. At that point he is OK with commercial photography on premises and there is no difference between one family and a dozen families.

The photographer should not have been discussing business on premises, but he did have the right to give his contact information when asked (to discuss the business later). At the point he was asked not to do business, he was obliged to stop. The photographer did have the right to hear the parents requests to photograph their kids and act on it with the intent of discussing sales later.

Posting the images online is questionable, particularly if they were publicly viewable.

The principal can not prevent the photographer from selling prints of images he took before the principal spoke to him. ie, there's nothing to stop the photographer from working with the parents through email - ie, sending watermarked samples for the parents to decide if they want to buy them.

Finally - I am not a lawyer - DO NOT take what I say as gospel. But I did work with a stock agency specializing in sports photos, most of which were taken by people from the stands who got in with tickets claiming the facility holds the copyright to any images taken. Bottom line, people who take images at sporting events are free to sell prints of those shots. What they cannot do is license them for commercial endorsements. Ie, if I take a picture of Shaq, I can't license it to a company to use in an ad campaign, but I can sell all the prints I want. It's not a stretch to say that similar rules would be in effect with a graduation.

Finally - for real this time - if you have any qualms about facing legal action - then don't sell the prints. It's not worth the potential hassle and stress.

Timberwolfpuppy said:
Don't take his advice. If the parents question why there was not a pro in place, they can call the principal themselves. You, the unauthorized, nearly tresspassing photographer

Paul Grupp · Jun 25, 2009

. . . is a mis-mash of your legal theories, and the idea of what one can get away with.

These are two very different things, and it is always wise to be very clear about which is which. Once you start to blur them, it can get very confusing.

Personally, I'm thinking he can get away with selling this set of images without triggering a law suit. I'm equally certain that if he does so, he will become a bad guy in the view of the school staff, thus ending a rather short career as a school photographer.

As far as the actual legality of what he has done, I suspect he has violated the school's policies, and probably state laws concerning vendors to schools, how they are selected, and how/when/if they are allowed access on school property. I'm not interested enough in the situation to look into how or if his state's laws pertaining to school vendor policies apply to private institutions, if at all. But like you, I'm just a photographer, not a lawyer.

Personally, I would never recommend engaging in this kind of work without the written approval and support of the school officials. My reputation is worth far more to me than a small handful of dollars earned from selling graduation pictures online.

--
-- In search of Wabi-Sabi

iMac therefore iAm · Jun 25, 2009

Paul Grupp said:
. . . is a mis-mash of your legal theories, and the idea of what one can get away with.

Thus my disclaimer to not take what I say as gospel ;-)

Paul Grupp said:
These are two very different things, and it is always wise to be very clear about which is which. Once you start to blur them, it can get very confusing.

Paul Grupp said:
Personally, I'm thinking he can get away with selling this set of images without triggering a law suit. I'm equally certain that if he does so, he will become a bad guy in the view of the school staff.

Agreed. What is legal is not always the best route for other other reasons.

Paul Grupp said:
As far as the legality of what he has done, I suspect he has violated the school's policies, and probably state laws concerning vendors, how they are selected, and how they are allowed access on school property. I'm not interested enough in the situation to look into how his state's laws pertaining to schools apply to private institutions, if at all. But like you, I'm just a photographer, not a lawyer.

This is probably true that he might have unknowingly violated some state laws. Conversely, one could say that he was being approached out of the blue to fulfill an independent contractor role with an individual parent. Could he have handled it better? - certainly. There should have been no talk about pricing, or how any sales would be done - just hand them a card and say "we'll talk later" - there's no business taking place because there has been no implication one way or another that this is a commercial deal or a favor. Besides, just because a law forbids doing business in a certain place doesn't mean that a person can't establish contact to do business at a later date when approached by someone else - that would border on first amendment violations IMO. But a chat with a lawyer would be required to determine if any state laws had been violated since he wasn't dealing with the school.

Paul Grupp said:
Personally, I would never recommend engaging in this kind of work without the approval and support of the school officials. My reputation is worth far more to me than a handful of dollars earned from selling graduation pictures online.

Agreed. It's one thing for a dad with a camera to do this, it's another thing for an established or aspiring photographer to do it if they want to remain in good standing.

WNPmedia · Jun 25, 2009

Bill McLeod said:
To everyone else correcting me...try to follow the posts. I was only
writing about Timberwolfpuppy's ridiculous assertion that you can't
photograph someone by themselves in public.

---------------------------------------------------
My response as one of "Everyone else".

If you didn't engage in personally targeted responses that could be seen as attacks and you didn't act as if you knew it all when you don't, you might gain some respect for your opinions.

As I pointed out to you earlier, your USA specific response in an International forum could well lead a reader into a perilious situation, even put in jail by following your advise which is specific to one or two countries but you failed to mention that.

At least 4 countries I have researched lately forbid photography of individual people in public places without their permission. One country forbids photography in the streets - period. Two of them have alternative jail terms for offenders. You can presume children to be "Individual people" for the purpose of this discussion.

The situation gets even more definative and restrictive when you try and decide for yourself what public space is. It is most certainly not, in a Public building or on public land or for that matter, on public transport or in public school grounds.

This makes taking photos "in public places" something you need to carefully consider and question before you go waltzing in to what you 'think' is a public area and begin taking photos of children. It could land you in jail.

In SoCal there is no such thing as a photographer's right to photograph children and or schools, be they private or public. Many of California's private schools forbid outright, the use of cameras by unapproved persons on school grounds. The OP in this thread was such a person.

In Queensland Australia (and other states) it is a criminal act to take photos of children in a swimming area - be it public or private. If Pro Photogapher get caught taking photos of children - with or without their parent's consent - inside the boundaries of 'Southbank parklands' and in many public swimming pools and doesn't have a permit issued by the management, they can be arrested and carted off to the holding cells. Permit application conditions vary but almost always need the applicant to have a 'Blue card" child worker's permit first.

It is illegal to take photographs in some Australian train stations too. No Australian (professional or semi-Pro) photographer can legally photograph children without first obtaining a "Blue card" from the Government which will only be issued after a police check. If the OP was in Australia and didn't have a 'blue card' he'd be in serious trouble just taking the photos without concerning himslef with the consequences of hawking them on the 'net.

I have no information about Californian laws having such licensing provisions but in Miami (where I was born) School photographers have be licensed by the state. You can't just walk into a public school anywhere in Florida and have the opinion it is public space. It's not. It's owned by the Government and subject to their control.

Just as private schools are owned privately and each owner has an absolute right and responsibility to protect under aged people on their property from people like photographers... Whom we all know have nothing but the purest of thoughts about photographing children.

Timberwolf is right. You can't take individule photos of individules in the USA and do what you feel like with them, unless they are on or in a public space and in or near a group of other people. I.E. Part of a scene.

Public land, transport depots, rail stations, shopping malls or public buildings are not public space they are owned by Government departments or private companies who can dictate who can photograph and what can be photographed.

In Canada it may be different. I wouldn't go there anyway so it doesn't interest me to find out.

As far as I know, Australia is the only country in the world where a person has no right NOT to be photographed. The offset is that you better be sure the reluctant person you photograph is not on private property!

--

When I was younger everyone wanted someone with more experience, Now I have it they all want someone younger!

rhavyn · Jun 25, 2009

WNPmedia said:
Bill McLeod said:

To everyone else correcting me...try to follow the posts. I was only
writing about Timberwolfpuppy's ridiculous assertion that you can't
photograph someone by themselves in public.

Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------------
My response as one of "Everyone else".

As I pointed out to you earlier, your USA specific response in an
International forum could well lead a reader into a perilious
situation, even put in jail by following your advise which is
specific to one or two countries but you failed to mention that.

Anyone who takes legal advice on an internet forum deserves any bad things that happen to them. And that would include this post.

WNPmedia said:
The situation gets even more definative and restrictive when you try
and decide for yourself what public space is. It is most certainly
not, in a Public building or on public land or for that matter, on
public transport or in public school grounds.

In the United States none of that really matters.

WNPmedia said:
This makes taking photos "in public places" something you need to
carefully consider and question before you go waltzing in to what you
'think' is a public area and begin taking photos of children. It
could land you in jail.

Again, in the United States, doesn't matter.

WNPmedia said:
In SoCal there is no such thing as a photographer's right to
photograph children and or schools, be they private or public. Many
of California's private schools forbid outright, the use of cameras
by unapproved persons on school grounds. The OP in this thread was
such a person.

In California you can photograph schools all you want, as long as you are not on their property or have their permission. Additionally, you can photograph children all you want as long as you want unless they are in one of the very few places that they have an expectation of privacy. And they do not have a blanket expectation of privacy on school grounds.

WNPmedia said:
Timberwolf is right. You can't take individule photos of individules
in the USA and do what you feel like with them, unless they are on or
in a public space and in or near a group of other people. I.E. Part
of a scene.

Absolutely wrong. In the United States you can, generally, photograph people at will on public or private property, barring the few places where an individual has an expectation of privacy. They do not need to be "part of a scene" or near a group of other people. On private property you can be asked to leave and, if you don't, you will be trespassing, but that has no bearing on your rights to photograph individuals there.

WNPmedia said:
Public land, transport depots, rail stations, shopping malls or
public buildings are not public space they are owned by Government
departments or private companies who can dictate who can photograph
and what can be photographed.

In the United States they absolutely cannot dictate what can or cannot be photographed, they can simply dictate who can or cannot be on the property. Unless you want to argue that lack of access restricts your ability to create a photograph, which I would agree with.

WNPmedia said:
As far as I know, Australia is the only country in the world where a
person has no right NOT to be photographed. The offset is that you
better be sure the reluctant person you photograph is not on private
property!

In the United States you can photograph whoever you want on public or private property as long as they have no expectation of privacy in that location.

Now, there are limitations on what you can do with those photographs. Specifically many commercial applications of those photographs would open you to litigation unless you have a signed release for the specific use. But that is a different question than whether or not you can photograph the person or not in the first place.

bill henry · Jun 25, 2009

tell them you will accept donations for the pictures, so much per print to cover your expenses.

Raymond Bradlau · Jun 25, 2009

I was hired (actually donated my time) to shoot a high school DUI safety thing for freshman.... but when I arrived was asked not to shoot minors !?!?!?

I learned a couple things that day, I will never shoot kids and never work for free again (low cost and free work is 10x harder than regular gigs).

Ray
--
http://www.TheSBimage.com

Bill McLeod · Jun 26, 2009

WNPmedia said:
As I pointed out to you earlier, your USA specific response in an
International forum could well lead a reader into a perilious
situation, even put in jail by following your advise which is
specific to one or two countries but you failed to mention that.

At least 4 countries I have researched lately forbid photography of
individual people in public places without their permission. One
country forbids photography in the streets - period. Two of them have
alternative jail terms for offenders. You can presume children to be
"Individual people" for the purpose of this discussion.

There are countries where you require the permission of the male head of the household before you photograph a woman too, (I saw it on TV so it must be true) but we were discussing the US.

WNPmedia said:
In SoCal there is no such thing as a photographer's right to
photograph children and or schools, be they private or public. Many
of California's private schools forbid outright, the use of cameras
by unapproved persons on school grounds. The OP in this thread was
such a person.

It's my understanding that you can photograph all the children and schools you like but you can not take any photographs of anything while on school property without permission.

WNPmedia said:
In Canada it may be different. I wouldn't go there anyway so it
doesn't interest me to find out.

Our loss, I guess. I promise I won't go to Queensland to photograph children at the public pool as well.

Craig Gillette · Jun 26, 2009

Bill McLeod said:
Bill McLeod said:

In SoCal there is no such thing as a photographer's right to
photograph children and or schools, be they private or public. Many
of California's private schools forbid outright, the use of cameras
by unapproved persons on school grounds. The OP in this thread was
such a person.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that you can photograph all the children and
schools you like but you can not take any photographs of anything
while on school property without permission.

True - sort of. However unlike the gross overstatements made by some here implying something different, a school is like other property - the owner has the right to make the rules for conduct on the property. Southern California being a geographic region, there are no laws specific to that area. There are laws and policies on trespass and entry. There are a number of codified laws about various activities on campus. Schools have laws and policies on conducting business on the property. California schools do not have laws saying there is no photography on the property without permission. Most schools I've been on - and I've been on plenty, have signs posted at the campus entry points regarding the entry restrictions and times, weapons, smoking, airplanes, animals, etc. But not photography. Because there is no law requiring explicit permission to take pictures. In fact, most people operate and schools operate with the understanding they have tacit permission to take pictures. The schools do work within the privacy/publicity laws with respect to getting permission for use of student pictures for publicity, etc.

If one wanders onto campus without checking in to the office during the required operating hours or disrupts the school activities, that's the problem.

Aleksandar Carevic · Jun 26, 2009

Simple: Convert all RAW's to jpeg's, burn DVD, go to school, give them DVD with pictures for free. Principal will say "thank you...etc, etc..." and that's it. If some of parents say "may I get my pictures" you will say "yes you can, go to school, ask principal"

thats' so simple

Or if you want, and if you have a time, you can send pictures by e-mail to other parents...

Whats problem?

Robert J. Gonzalez · Jun 27, 2009

Craig Gillette said:
Bill McLeod said:

Craig Gillette said:

In SoCal there is no such thing as a photographer's right to
photograph children and or schools, be they private or public. Many
of California's private schools forbid outright, the use of cameras
by unapproved persons on school grounds. The OP in this thread was
such a person.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that you can photograph all the children and
schools you like but you can not take any photographs of anything
while on school property without permission.

Click to expand...

True - sort of. However unlike the gross overstatements made by some
here implying something different, a school is like other property -
the owner has the right to make the rules for conduct on the
property.

Absolutely false.

A property owner has the Authority (not right) to tell you to leave or allow you to stay.

That's it.

Southern California being a geographic region, there are

Craig Gillette said:
no laws specific to that area. There are laws and policies on
trespass and entry. There are a number of codified laws about
various activities on campus. Schools have laws and policies on
conducting business on the property. California schools do not have
laws saying there is no photography on the property without
permission. Most schools I've been on - and I've been on plenty,
have signs posted at the campus entry points regarding the entry
restrictions and times, weapons, smoking, airplanes, animals, etc.
But not photography. Because there is no law requiring explicit
permission to take pictures. In fact, most people operate and
schools operate with the understanding they have tacit permission to
take pictures. The schools do work within the privacy/publicity laws
with respect to getting permission for use of student pictures for
publicity, etc.

If one wanders onto campus without checking in to the office during
the required operating hours or disrupts the school activities,
that's the problem.

will I get in trouble

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts