Also, I might add, I would never shoot children at all without some kind of written consent, no matter where.

Great input! Thank you, gentlemen. I must say I generally avoid shooting strangers, adult or children. I know there are situations where asking isn´t very practical (street crowd), but shots like that usually function as "backgrounds". When no person is "in focus" it´s 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 it´s like violating a person´s "copyright". Being a composer, I´m very aware of copyrights. I wouldn´t want anyone to use my work without permission.
Neither would anyone else?

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

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

-terje

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.

Yeah, I get your point, Erik. But I do think it´s important to divide between people that willingly have walked onto the stage and into the stage light, and those who have not. I´m 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 someone´s lack of respect for other people shouldn´t be an excuse for all of us to behave the same way, should it?

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

-terje

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.

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.

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.

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!

Jay, thanks for the link. It was an educating read, at least about what´s 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 isn´t very helpful when it comes to topics like these.

-terje

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?

That's my understanding.

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, 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
you´re covered, you might not be at all...

-terje

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