Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- From: "Scott W" <biphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Mar 2006 08:45:24 -0800
Jeremy wrote:
"Lucid" <conciser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageIf you are in a public place you have little right of privacy. There
news:9906f$441ad4c6$cef8d3a2$14967@xxxxxxxxxxx
I need to take candid shots of people in public places, from about 5 to 10
feet distance, for a community web site. Most people change their facial
expressions and behavior when they realize that a camera is pointing at
them.
Taking shots of peoples' likenesses--even when taken in "public places"--and
then publishing them on Internet web sites is probably a violation of their
privacy, and may result in your being smacked with numerous lawsuits.
Courts have consistently held that ordinary people, as opposed to
celebrities or political figures, are not considered "public persons," and
have the right to be left alone. That is why we have something called
"Model Releases," to document that the photographer was AUTHORIZED to record
the subjects' likenesses.
are limits to what can be done with a photograph where the person has
not signed a release, using the photos for commercial gain is not
allowed unless the photo is in the context of a news story. But it the
web site is not set up to make money then there is should be little
problems with posting the photos.
You can usually get around the legal restrictions by photographing people inAre you so sure that he does not ask if it is ok to publish the photo
such a way that they cannot be identified individually, but you should ask
an attorney for advice in your jurisdiction.
Aside from the legal obstacles, I think that your blatant disregard for
peoples' privacy concerns is appalling, and that you ought to find some more
constructive activity with which to fill your time. People like you are
encouraging a legal backlash against photography by the general public and
by legislators. Responsible photographers should not have unnecessary
restrictions imposed upon them because of the actions of a small minority
like you.
after he has taken it?
And, tell me please, just WHAT would a "COMMUNITY" web site want to be doingYou might be right and it does make nervous when people photograph in
putting photos of members of their community on public display when they
know that such activities are unwelcome by the subjects of the photos? I
suspect that the web site is YOURS, not any COMMUNITY'S . . .
such a way that others can't tell they are being photographed.
I photograph people all the time and post their photos on the web. I
don't have problems with anyone being mad about their photos on the
web, more problems if I miss someone.
I also have problems with people reacting to the camera, my approach is
to take so many photos that people start to ignore me.
Scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- From: m Ransley
- Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- From: Lucid
- Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- References:
- Good for Candid Shots?
- From: Lucid
- Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- From: Jeremy
- Good for Candid Shots?
- Prev by Date: Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- Next by Date: Re: RAW files
- Previous by thread: Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- Next by thread: Re: Good for Candid Shots?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|