Permission while shooting in public? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > Taking Care of Business

Taking Care of Business
The pen and paper aspects of DV -- put it in writing!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 15th, 2008, 04:11 PM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 230
Also, I might add, I would never shoot children at all without some kind of written consent, no matter where.
Buck Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2008, 09:12 PM   #17
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 105
Great input! Thank you, gentlemen. I must say I generally avoid shooting strangers, adult or children. I know there are situations where asking isnīt very practical (street crowd), but shots like that usually function as "backgrounds". When no person is "in focus" itīs easier to justify the shot. But the most artistic shots (Bresson!) usually have only a few well-composed persons in it. The characters contribute with their personality. They become the motivation for the shot. I find it very difficult to do a shot like that without asking permission. For me itīs like violating a personīs "copyright". Being a composer, Iīm very aware of copyrights. I wouldnīt want anyone to use my work without permission.
Neither would anyone else?

Iīve seen some of Mr. Bloomīs well-planned and artistic shots, and Iīve always wondered how heīs able to pull off his "invasions" into his objectīs personal sphere. Doing the actual filming is one thing, releasing in on the web is another. But I guess itīs like everything else in this world, if you want to get ahead itīs better to go for forgiveness than permission... But - as suggested in another post here - we wouldnīt have Mr. Bressonīs beautiful work to look at, if he only did his magic WITH permissions. Itīs clearly a dilemma.

That said, itīs of course much more interesting to "shoot" people. Anyone up for a session? ;-)

-terje
__________________
Terje Rian, Creative Director
www.notene.no
Terje Rian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2008, 09:32 PM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 628
Another way to look at it. How many stars get their whole family followed by photographers? Peeking over walls, through windows, helicopters flying along their beach front home, then the pictures are published world wide without permission....

Maybe we are making too big a deal out of this. I think much worse happens every day and they get paid to do it to.
Erik Phairas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2008, 10:19 PM   #19
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 105
Yeah, I get your point, Erik. But I do think itīs important to divide between people that willingly have walked onto the stage and into the stage light, and those who have not. Iīm quite sure that celebrities sometimes regret the prize they pay for their fame, but they also depend on the attention they receive. In a way they get something in return. The attention is the primary foundation which they base their "market value" on.

The consept of paparazzis is another story and surely worth a thread alone. But someoneīs lack of respect for other people shouldnīt be an excuse for all of us to behave the same way, should it?

I guess balance is the way to go? :-)

-terje
__________________
Terje Rian, Creative Director
www.notene.no
Terje Rian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2008, 10:50 PM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 628
well I certainly wouldn't want to join them..LOL but I think it gives an insight in the legal issues involved. Unless they have special permission it looks like field is wide open. If they can publish photos of a private wedding taken with a 300mm lens from some mountain top. Surely a person who walks in front of my camera and gets mad doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Erik Phairas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2008, 11:12 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: an Alaskan living in Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 513
I was always under the impression that public was public. my background was news, so that was the rule we followed. if you were on public property, you were fair game. that is the rule I follow to this day.

as mentioned before, the "right to privacy" doesnt extend to public places.
Ian Planchon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 12:27 PM   #22
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
This has been addressed a number of times in the "Taking Care of Business" forum. So, here it is, one more time:

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

This also applies to videographers.
Jay Gladwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 12:46 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Norfolk, UK
Posts: 627
This is an interesting subject, and one which I often battle with myself.

I was recently approached by a security guard in a Norwich city shopping mall who asked why I had my camera with me. I explained that I had been filming in the city and was returning to my car. The guard asked if I had a license to film in the city centre to which I said no. I asked him who issues the licences but he didn't know.

He also told a friend I was with that he couldn't take photo's either without a license.

When I asked why he approached us he said it's because terrorists often film places in preparation for an attack, to which I suggested that they would probably use a camera a little less conspicuous than mine (EX1, rails & brevis)!

I did some research when I got home that day and it's not made very clear at all whether or not this guy was right. I've been back since then and have walked past the police a few times who didn't seem to have any problems with me being there at all.

Unfortunately the world we live in has become paranoid, and rightly so. That should not stop artists from expressing themselves and capturing images of the world around them though... IMO anyway!
__________________
Blog: www.pauljoy.com
Company: www.videotrader.co.uk
Paul Joy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 05:23 PM   #24
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 105
Jay, thanks for the link. It was an educating read, at least about whatīs valid in US.

Paul, your perspective brings another dimension to the table. I guess the biggest problem (for us shooters) is that the "rules" sometimes are enforced by ignorant people that enjoy being in power. And as you suggested, the world situation in general isnīt very helpful when it comes to topics like these.

-terje
__________________
Terje Rian, Creative Director
www.notene.no
Terje Rian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2008, 12:57 PM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 230
Thanks for the Photographer's Rights link. It doesn't really answer the question though, because you may have the "right" to take anyone's photo in public, but it doesn't talk about your rights on how you "use" the photo/footage in various applications and intentions.
Buck Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2008, 01:10 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: an Alaskan living in Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Forester View Post
Thanks for the Photographer's Rights link. It doesn't really answer the question though, because you may have the "right" to take anyone's photo in public, but it doesn't talk about your rights on how you "use" the photo/footage in various applications and intentions.
wouldnt it be a safe assumption though, if you are allowed to shoot whatever you want of whomever you want on public property, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it?
Ian Planchon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2008, 02:11 PM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 792
That's my understanding.
__________________
http://www.gooderick.com
Richard Gooderick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2008, 02:43 PM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Planchon View Post
wouldnt it be a safe assumption though, if you are allowed to shoot whatever you want of whomever you want on public property, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it?
That's not my take on it. If you see me drinking Coca Cola on the sidewalk and zoom in on my face and it's used for a national Coca Cola commercial ad campaign, I don't think that's legal. Or, if you take a picture of me specifically out of the crowd in public and it's used for, oh, a campaign for a controversial organization and thus makes me associated with it, I don't think that's legal. Or if you take a photo of me in public and single me out of the crowd in an embarrasing moment and humiliate me through publication, I think I would have a case. Or if I see me on the cover of a Gay Advocate magazine (not that there's anything wrong with that) because I was walking in public (and I'm not gay but they just used the image of me from walking down a public sidewalk), I won't take that kindly and the law would be on my side.

How you apply images taken in public matter legally. That's been my understanding. Also, in some situations, 'how' you get the photos in public can be a legal matter too (such as putting a POV camera on your shoe in an attempt to get shots of girls in dresses walking by, etc.) Nothing is always so simple, especially with the number of lawyers in our country, ha ha!
Buck Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2008, 05:43 PM   #29
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 105
Buck, I agree. But it seems that many try to bend the rules anyways. Here in Norway we had a special case some time ago. Tha largest national paparazzi magazine took some pictures - in a public place, of two famous people getting married, even if they already had been told NOT to take pictures. In the following legal fall out, the magazine lost big time and had to pay money for their misconduct. As you say, nothing is simple. When you THINK
youīre covered, you might not be at all...

-terje
__________________
Terje Rian, Creative Director
www.notene.no
Terje Rian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2008, 04:19 AM   #30
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chislehurst, London
Posts: 1,724
One point that seems to have been overlooked. If a picture of someone drinking Coca or Pepsi Cola is considered for an advertising campaign then the agency will ask for a model release prior to publishing. The same also applies to photographing/filming a private property, you have to get a property release.

Did you know that the Eiffel tower at night is copyright, you can't publish a shot of it (for commercial use) without a property release (something to do with the lights), the same holds true for the tower in Toronto (name escapes me). Just to throw a spanner in the works, firework displays are also subject to copyright laws, they are regarded as a performance.

Maybe we should all just superglue our lens-caps on :-(

Happy Christmas everyone
Vincent Oliver is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > Taking Care of Business

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network