This could be very handy, though I won’t be printing it out and reading it fully until tomorrow — The Photographer’s Right — your rights when stopped or confronted for photography.
(via Jason)
[See also: Twelve hours to go… | Go Tony! | Eleven Saints | Attention Tomato Scouts! | Jason Webley Bootlegs ]
schinji: RE: D&D Yes. Played a pre-made module for the new 4th ed recently that was essentially decimating a...
dang: Ha, get over it. In the time you’ve been wringing your hands about whether or not you can allow yourself...
Cheryl: Actually, bloggers who are interested can join the Chapeau Blog Awards affiliate program which gives each...
Bertamum: We were down to $2.97 today in Anchorage. 
Michael Hanscom: One of these days I need to find some spare time, sit down, and actually update my scores. Been a...
May 28th, 2003 at 4:36 pm
Thank you Wudi.
Let me add just a bit to what I read. First off professional photographers have a whole new set of rules. He’s talking about regular people taking photographs. Of which I think this guy misleads just a bit. He states. “Permissible subjects are children and people in public places” I agree and disagree, Yes you can take the picture. But…..BIG BUT. You may not display it publicly if any persons face is visible. And displaying publicly means showing the picture to coworkers at the office or posting them on a website. Lets take one of your pictures Wudi. Aiming down the stairs with some stranger standing at the bottom. The way your picture is shown now. We the public are unable to make out his face, We see that there is someone there but couldn’t say who. That is legal. If you had zoomed in just a bit and we could see his face that would be not legal. You could not put his face on your site without his permission ( in writing ) Now where the line is drawn on weather his face is visable or not is decided in a court of law. And with current sex offender laws I would be very VERY careful photographing children in public. Don’t look at me like that… I’m not a pessimest, I’m a realist.
May 28th, 2003 at 6:12 pm
I have to disagree with Tim. Current law states that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, and therefore any picture taken of a person in public can be displayed publicly or published. Children are somewhat a different matter - many newspapers will get parental permission to publish photos of children, although minors have no more reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place than an adult by law.
If the subject of a photo specifically tells a photographer that they don’t want their photograph published or otherwise used, then the photographer has no right to display it. Otherwise, almost all photos in public places are fair game - it all comes down to ‘reasonable expectation of privacy.’ If any person walking down a public street can see it in plain view (even if it’s in someone’s private back yard) it’s legal. That’s if I remember it correctly from media law class. There are some exceptions, of course, but by and large, public photos are legal and fair.
May 29th, 2003 at 8:57 pm
Hummmm…… Might have to look into this one some more, I don’t know Washington law or even Alaskan law but I do know the courts have punished people that displayed photographs clearly showing the face of someone, when they didn’t have a signed model release .
I recall several, one was a picture of twins rollerbladeing. Photographer fined $3,000. He put a poster of the picture on his store wall. The girls and the store was in southern Califiornia. He was not selling the poster just displaying it.
Another was a man that showed pictures of his wife to the guy next door. yes naughty pictures. I listened to the Judge talking to the wife. Mamm, I must make very clear to you that your husband taking your picture, with … or without … your permission is not a crime. However the public display of the pictures is. fine ? $500,000 yes FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND. Ok the guy was a creep but thats not my point.
My current understanding is if you take a picture of someone and post it on a website and it pisses them off you can in fact get in to legal hot water.
For example.
Wudi and I go out to the beach on sunday and Wudi spots a very beautiful woman in a skimpy bathing suit. He pulls out his camera and takes a quick snapshot in which you can see her face clearly. Your saying Wudi can then put that picture on this site, and the woman has no legal standing?
I’m saying if she finds out about it and is pissed. Wudi in in deep s**t and he better hire a damm good lawyer. And I wouldn’t want stand in front of the Judge and say. I have the RIGHT to take her picture and I have the RIGHT to post it on my website.
I believe that not only does Wudi NOT have the right he may in fact be fined a vary large sum of money. Even if the beach is public, and even if she has no expectation of privacy. Wudi is STILL in trouble Not for taking the picture but for displaying it.
Ok lets remove the website
Lets say Wudi takes the picture and shows it to his coworkers at the office. Hey guys…check out this ” babe ” I saw on the beach. One of his coworkers is friends with the lady and calls her up. You’re never going to believe this but some jackass here is passing around a picture of you in a bathing suit.
I say again. Even if she was on a public beach. Wudi is in deep, deep s**t. he will lose his job and if the lady sues he will pay.
and your saying what he’s doing is legal ? I think not.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think so.
May 29th, 2003 at 10:37 pm
Tim —
I’m wondering if the difference might be between photographs for private use, and exhibiting the photograph (especially for profit). In your first example, the photograph of the rollerbladers displayed by the photographer, it may have been that rather than just taking the picture, he had it enlarged and on display — essentially an advertisement for his photographic work. At that point, the subjects of the photo became ‘models,’ at least in some sense. I’m not sure, though, that’s most definitely just a guess.
From what I understand, at least of local laws, I do believe that Kirsten is right. I’m reminded of a story that I commented on last September in which a local court overturned the conviction of a man who had taken ‘up-skirt’ photographs of women at the Seattle Center. The ruling there was that because the women were in a public space, they had no real expectations of privacy, and therefore had no legal ground to prevent someone from photographing them, even in an offensive and obscene manner.
Going by that precedent, it would seem to me that — at least in public — there is no real recourse for someone if their photograph is used or displayed without their permission. That may be different from state to state, but that seems to be the case here in Washington.
At the same time, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), and so could be entirely off base in this.
May 30th, 2003 at 3:46 pm
For profit… is 100% wrong without a model release. I’m only talking about private use.
But take a second and read your first line again.
” I’m wondering if the difference might be between photographs for private use, and exhibiting the photograph.”
Private use is YOU looking at the picture. Exhibiting the photograph is you showing it to anyone else.
As I stated, you can take the picture but not display it. Passing the picture around the office or posting it on your site is “exhibiting the photograph ” even if it is not for profit.
But now you’ve made me start thinking again…Damm you. So I’ll have to do some research and check the laws in Washington. I’ll also check the Federal laws because federal laws always overide state laws.
June 28th, 2004 at 10:16 am
Don’t we all pass around pictures that we take? isn’t that why we get double prints, to share the images? I contend that if you take a photo and use it for advertising purposes (like for rollerblading) then yes you need permission from the subject. If you take any other picture in public then you can use it at will. This goes for news reporters or my Mother.
The trouble arises that nowadays folks take camera phones into gyms, or hide camcorders in bathrooms. So the judges decided that if you have a “reasonable expectation of privacy, even in public” then you are entitled to privacy protection. This includes public restrooms, changing rooms, etc.
The advance in lenses, film, and digital cameras can make it easy for anyone to shoot anything. At one time in CA they thought about making lenses over 400mm valid for photojournalists only. Outlaw a 500mm lens? Try it!
Now if you are on the beach and I take a photo of you, and the resolution is so good that I can enlarge it to the point that your OB/GYN could only get closer, well that may not be NICE, but it is not ILLEGAL.
December 19th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
I think there is a difference in the overall subject of the picture.. If you were taking a picture obviously of the one person as the subject, then they may have some right to complain.. If however you are taking a picture of the pier at the beach, and they are in the picture walking past it, or a photo of the local historic railway station and they are standing on the landing, I dont believe they should have the rights to complain of the picture. They are not the subject of the photo, and as said before, in public there is no expectation of privacy.
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:58 am
You can download the UK Photograhpers Rights guide from http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php