What would you have done?

[NZ Scott]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

This is annoying, as it prevents for candid shots, but it works generally better. Personnally I allways ask for permission first and I offer the person to send them a picture. Quite often, I shoot people engaged in a specific activity and I take various shots. After a few moments, the person forgets about the camera.

Your two statements are absolutely wrong. In the United States

Cherry is in France, so US laws would not apply. But I think maybe a point about good behavior was being made. If you know you want to use someone’s appearance commercially I think you should ask first not because the law requires it, but because it is high handed and possibly stressful for the subject if you shoot first and ask questions later. The law does not entitle you to candid shots for commercial use.

If you are in a public space you have no right to privacy and can legally be photographed, singly or in a group / background. You can't get candid images when asking prior permission, and the moment is gone by then anyhow. In the newspaper industry images generally don't get published if the subject won't give you their name.

_________

StevenN

You handled it well although I wouldn't have continued the discussion, or deleted the photos. I wouldn't have used them if they wouldn't give you their name, but I would not have deleted them.

But StevenN said in his OP he was shooting for a newspaper and its website (which is not commercial use) and he lives in the U.S. That is what we are discussing. Commercial use, advertising, etc, would require a model release in the U.S.

What makes you think using photos to sell periodicals is non-commercial?

I'm not sure what you guys mean by 'commercial' and 'non-commercial', but paparazzi photographers shoot people for images that they later sell, and they certainly don't ask permission.

This thread has been about the situation described by the OP, who does not seem to be a paparazzo. The paparazzi are worthy of discussion, but it would be a different discussion.

It's the same topic that you're discussing re 'periodicals'.

S

 

[LeicaEye]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

This is annoying, as it prevents for candid shots, but it works generally better. Personnally I allways ask for permission first and I offer the person to send them a picture. Quite often, I shoot people engaged in a specific activity and I take various shots. After a few moments, the person forgets about the camera.

Your two statements are absolutely wrong. In the United States

Cherry is in France, so US laws would not apply. But I think maybe a point about good behavior was being made. If you know you want to use someone’s appearance commercially I think you should ask first not because the law requires it, but because it is high handed and possibly stressful for the subject if you shoot first and ask questions later. The law does not entitle you to candid shots for commercial use.

If you are in a public space you have no right to privacy and can legally be photographed, singly or in a group / background. You can't get candid images when asking prior permission, and the moment is gone by then anyhow. In the newspaper industry images generally don't get published if the subject won't give you their name.

_________

StevenN

You handled it well although I wouldn't have continued the discussion, or deleted the photos. I wouldn't have used them if they wouldn't give you their name, but I would not have deleted them.

But StevenN said in his OP he was shooting for a newspaper and its website (which is not commercial use) and he lives in the U.S. That is what we are discussing. Commercial use, advertising, etc, would require a model release in the U.S.

What makes you think using photos to sell periodicals is non-commercial?

I'm not sure what you guys mean by 'commercial' and 'non-commercial', but paparazzi photographers shoot people for images that they later sell, and they certainly don't ask permission.

This thread has been about the situation described by the OP, who does not seem to be a paparazzo. The paparazzi are worthy of discussion, but it would be a different discussion.

The true paparazzi are silently admired by many.

 

[bodeswell]

The comical (and maddening) thing about it is that "Aunt Sylvia" is surrounded everywhere she goes by people with their phones out, and never notices a thing or says a word.

So are we all, but it is very rarely the case that those folks are taking pictures of us for a newspaper.

I personally have taken photos of people with my iPhone for publishing in newspapers.

S

If you know in advance that you are going to ask permission then perhaps it would be appropriate to ask in advance. I am skeptical of the candidness argument.

Do people honestly think all published photos of people are taken with permission or that the photos of people taken on the street or at private events are taken by first asking if the person is ok being photographed? This is the very nature of several entire genres of photography. I would think that readers on this forum would understand that better.

I understand. I really like Vivian Maier, for instance, or Brassai. But the OP knew he was going to ask permission before he took the picture because he wanted to get consent after the fact. He didn’t, so he rightly didn’t use the photo. But he was dismayed when another person criticized him. My point is simply that the lady who criticized him had every right to do so, despite the legality of taking photos in public.

 

[bodeswell]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

This is annoying, as it prevents for candid shots, but it works generally better. Personnally I allways ask for permission first and I offer the person to send them a picture. Quite often, I shoot people engaged in a specific activity and I take various shots. After a few moments, the person forgets about the camera.

Your two statements are absolutely wrong. In the United States

Cherry is in France, so US laws would not apply. But I think maybe a point about good behavior was being made. If you know you want to use someone’s appearance commercially I think you should ask first not because the law requires it, but because it is high handed and possibly stressful for the subject if you shoot first and ask questions later. The law does not entitle you to candid shots for commercial use.

If you are in a public space you have no right to privacy and can legally be photographed, singly or in a group / background. You can't get candid images when asking prior permission, and the moment is gone by then anyhow. In the newspaper industry images generally don't get published if the subject won't give you their name.

_________

StevenN

You handled it well although I wouldn't have continued the discussion, or deleted the photos. I wouldn't have used them if they wouldn't give you their name, but I would not have deleted them.

But StevenN said in his OP he was shooting for a newspaper and its website (which is not commercial use) and he lives in the U.S. That is what we are discussing. Commercial use, advertising, etc, would require a model release in the U.S.

What makes you think using photos to sell periodicals is non-commercial?

I'm not sure what you guys mean by 'commercial' and 'non-commercial', but paparazzi photographers shoot people for images that they later sell, and they certainly don't ask permission.

This thread has been about the situation described by the OP, who does not seem to be a paparazzo. The paparazzi are worthy of discussion, but it would be a different discussion.

GIt's the same topic that you're discussing re 'periodicals'.

The OP was shooting for a newspaper and he did ask permission. When he didn’t get it he deleted the photo. My exchange with an earlier poster, which you are commenting upon, had to do with whether photos taken to sell something else - like newspapers - are commercial.

S

 

[LeicaEye]

The comical (and maddening) thing about it is that "Aunt Sylvia" is surrounded everywhere she goes by people with their phones out, and never notices a thing or says a word.

So are we all, but it is very rarely the case that those folks are taking pictures of us for a newspaper.

I personally have taken photos of people with my iPhone for publishing in newspapers.

S

If you know in advance that you are going to ask permission then perhaps it would be appropriate to ask in advance. I am skeptical of the candidness argument.

Do people honestly think all published photos of people are taken with permission or that the photos of people taken on the street or at private events are taken by first asking if the person is ok being photographed? This is the very nature of several entire genres of photography. I would think that readers on this forum would understand that better.

I understand. I really like Vivian Maier, for instance, or Brassai. But the OP knew he was going to ask permission before he took the picture because he wanted to get consent after the fact. He didn’t, so he rightly didn’t use the photo. But he was dismayed when another person criticized him. My point is simply that the lady who criticized him had every right to do so, despite the legality of taking photos in public.

Case Closed - Moving On

 

[bodeswell]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

Cherry, I suspect what you describe is a legal nuance that probably varies from country to country. It might or might not be true in France, say, but in the UK photographing people in public places (e.g. the street) without permission is allowable whereas on private property (e.g. a shopping mall) is not.

Right, laws vary a bit from country to country. California and some Canada provinces have their specific legislations. But, at the end of the day, the underlying principles are very much similar.

As other members have said, it is not prohibited to take photographs of people without their permission. What is regulated is the use of the images.The problem is, when someone notices he/she is being photographed, they cannot guess what the photographer does intent to do with those images...

Especially, in the situation described by the OP, when the picture would be used in a newspaper and/or published. That's why I suggested to explain first, and shoot later. Yes, the image is less candid...

I was a bit confused by your original post, and thought you must have some different laws in France.

Then I thought - what about the paparazzi photographers who chased Princess Diana the night she died?

Were they legally required to ask her permission to take her photo?

I'm certain they were not!

Cheers,

Sciott

So what? Not everything that is legal is admirable.

 

[bodeswell]

I never asked for permission to take these photos and I wouldn't have gotten them if I'd asked first:













S

So what?

 

[FrancoD]

Taken without Permission & Inside a Mall..

Yes, just the kind of photo I find interesting.

I think in years to come, long after all those pictures of flying eagles/Eiffel Tower/aeroplane XYZ have long since been forgotten social historians will be looking at images like this, aying "Ah ha, so that's what life was like in 2024".

In the UK you photo would have been illegal since a shopping mall is private property, albeit open to the public. I probably would have done it too - but sneakily!

I think illegal in a Mall here. (USA)

Not illegal in a mall here (NZ).

S

A shopping mall (not an alley/street...) is private property , therefore IF they have as their policy " no photos" then it is illegal to take photos.

 

[NZ Scott]

She expressed a legal view.

S

 

[NZ Scott]

Taken without Permission & Inside a Mall..

Yes, just the kind of photo I find interesting.

I think in years to come, long after all those pictures of flying eagles/Eiffel Tower/aeroplane XYZ have long since been forgotten social historians will be looking at images like this, aying "Ah ha, so that's what life was like in 2024".

In the UK you photo would have been illegal since a shopping mall is private property, albeit open to the public. I probably would have done it too - but sneakily!

I think illegal in a Mall here. (USA)

Not illegal in a mall here (NZ).

S

A shopping mall (not an alley/street...) is private property , therefore IF they have as their policy " no photos" then it is illegal to take photos.

I don't know where you live, but in my country that is not the case.

S

 

[NZ Scott]

I never asked for permission to take these photos and I wouldn't have gotten them if I'd asked first:













S

So what?

I see you are arguing with everyone in this thread with comments like this.

Everyone else has made constructive comments even when they disagree.

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

 

[FrancoD]

Taken without Permission & Inside a Mall..

Yes, just the kind of photo I find interesting.

I think in years to come, long after all those pictures of flying eagles/Eiffel Tower/aeroplane XYZ have long since been forgotten social historians will be looking at images like this, aying "Ah ha, so that's what life was like in 2024".

In the UK you photo would have been illegal since a shopping mall is private property, albeit open to the public. I probably would have done it too - but sneakily!

I think illegal in a Mall here. (USA)

Not illegal in a mall here (NZ).

S

A shopping mall (not an alley/street...) is private property , therefore IF they have as their policy " no photos" then it is illegal to take photos.

BTW, I meant in the USA, it's different in NZ.

 

[NZ Scott]

Taken without Permission & Inside a Mall..

Yes, just the kind of photo I find interesting.

I think in years to come, long after all those pictures of flying eagles/Eiffel Tower/aeroplane XYZ have long since been forgotten social historians will be looking at images like this, aying "Ah ha, so that's what life was like in 2024".

In the UK you photo would have been illegal since a shopping mall is private property, albeit open to the public. I probably would have done it too - but sneakily!

I think illegal in a Mall here. (USA)

Not illegal in a mall here (NZ).

S

A shopping mall (not an alley/street...) is private property , therefore IF they have as their policy " no photos" then it is illegal to take photos.

BTW, I meant in the USA, it's different in NZ.

All good mate - can get a bit confusing sometimes in a global forum.

S

 

[FrancoD]

The OP is in the USA.

BTW, in Australia shopping malls are also legaly defined as private property , similar to the USA situation .

For example :

Just because people have free access to a place does not mean that place is a public place in which you are free to take photographs. Educational institutions (both government and non-government schools), child care services, hospitals, nursing homes, shopping malls, sports arenas, music venues (such as hotels and concert halls) are considered to be private property; even if they are owned by a local council or other government organisation. Open markets, such as Sydney’s Paddys Markets and Melbourne’s Queen Victoria Market are on private property so that photography at those markets can be regulated by the operator of the market. Museums, art galleries and amusement parks may also have photography policies on the basis the location is private property.

https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

 

[NZ Scott]

The OP is in the USA.

Yes, though he didn't mention that in his original post which might be why this discussion is international.

BTW, in Australia shopping malls are also legaly defined as private property , similar to the USA situation .

Interesting, but NZ is different.

The news media in NZ is a little more free than in Australia and the USA, and this is reflected in the rules around photography.

S

For example :

Just because people have free access to a place does not mean that place is a public place in which you are free to take photographs. Educational institutions (both government and non-government schools), child care services, hospitals, nursing homes, shopping malls, sports arenas, music venues (such as hotels and concert halls) are considered to be private property; even if they are owned by a local council or other government organisation. Open markets, such as Sydney’s Paddys Markets and Melbourne’s Queen Victoria Market are on private property so that photography at those markets can be regulated by the operator of the market. Museums, art galleries and amusement parks may also have photography policies on the basis the location is private property.

https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

 

[Sothoth]

The comical (and maddening) thing about it is that "Aunt Sylvia" is surrounded everywhere she goes by people with their phones out, and never notices a thing or says a word.

So are we all, but it is very rarely the case that those folks are taking pictures of us for a newspaper.

I personally have taken photos of people with my iPhone for publishing in newspapers.

S

If you know in advance that you are going to ask permission then perhaps it would be appropriate to ask in advance. I am skeptical of the candidness argument.

Do people honestly think all published photos of people are taken with permission or that the photos of people taken on the street or at private events are taken by first asking if the person is ok being photographed? This is the very nature of several entire genres of photography. I would think that readers on this forum would understand that better.

Yes, me too.

Most of the people commenting on this thread are making decent points though.

It seems to come down to the law (you can take photos) versus courtesy (some people think it's polite to ask first).

Personally, I only ask first if I want a close-up portrait photo or if the person seems bothered by me taking photos.

S

 

[David Lal]

[Police, Hi, how are you doing?]

I was in Sevilla a few years ago and was struck by a brilliant display of simultaneous horsemanship and mobile 'phone use by a mounted policeman. I thought I could sneak a quick photograph:


D300; Nik 18-35 (Ithink)

But he noticed and I was caught. I thought I was going to be in trouble but he just waved and said ¡Hola!¿Que tal? He had a colleague behind him on another horse who signalled he'd like a photo too. After the trip I sent copies of the images.

I can ride and I can just about use a mobile 'phone but for me to do both at the same time would be quite impossible. This was in a public place but I have no idea of what the legal situation is in Spain.

 

[bodeswell]

I never asked for permission to take these photos and I wouldn't have gotten them if I'd asked first:

So what?

I see you are arguing with everyone in this thread with comments like this.

Everyone else has made constructive comments even when they disagree.

What's not constructive about asking you what your point is? The discussion I have been having with some folks is whether, when taking pictures for a newspaper, one should prioritize politeness and whether press photographers have any expectation of not hearing criticism. Is your point simply that you do not prioritize politeness? Or is your point that you should not experience any back talk?

 

[Josh Siddle]

It sounds like you had quite the eventful day at the craft fair! Dealing with unexpected reactions can definitely throw you off balance. It seems like you handled the situation with professionalism, respecting the privacy of the individuals involved. While it's understandable that some people may feel uncomfortable being photographed, especially without prior consent, your adherence to the law and prompt deletion of the photo showed respect for their wishes. Perhaps in the future, a quick heads-up before snapping the shot could prevent any misunderstandings.

 

[NZ Scott]

I never asked for permission to take these photos and I wouldn't have gotten them if I'd asked first:

So what?

I see you are arguing with everyone in this thread with comments like this.

Everyone else has made constructive comments even when they disagree.

What's not constructive about asking you what your point is? The discussion I have been having with some folks is whether, when taking pictures for a newspaper, one should prioritize politeness and whether press photographers have any expectation of not hearing criticism. Is your point simply that you do not prioritize politeness? Or is your point that you should not experience any back talk?

My point is that this whole genre of photography involves taking photos without asking first.

I would have thought this point woukd not have to be spelled out.

S