Interesting experience out in the country....

[rogueish]

take her the print but don't leave the business card.. she might send Jim-Bob around!

Or worse, a son in law lawyer...

 

[RAP]

Sounds to me the poor women was having problems, maybe being evicted from her home for what ever the reason. The landlord sold the property or maybe the local planning board in their corrupt wisdom declared eminent domain and condemned her property to make way for some bright new future. Happens all the time.

I once photographed a farm that was published. A few years later I got a call from the owner who asked for some prints. Sensing a potential problem, I charged her only cost for the prints. She later said that I should have asked for permission. People are very touchy these days and for good reason.

Rights work both ways, the photographers rights and the property owners. If you published without a property release, you could get sued and loose.

 

[ian_greant]

Rights work both ways, the photographers rights and the property owners. If you published without a property release, you could get sued and loose.

This is true. But you have omitted enough information to be misleading.

Photos of people and property can be published for editorial and educational purposes without a release. Proper captioning is key.

To use photos of people or property for advertising use you need a model or property release.

Having a release doesn't necessarily protect you from a lawsuit if a photo is used in a defamatory method.

e.g. Book Cindy Crawford for a model shoot. Put it with your agency and somehow a high end escort agency ends up using dear Cindy's image to promote their services... "whole lot a suing going on!"

You'd probably safe since the terms of any stock agency strictly forbid that sort of use, but less obvious transgressions happen in editorial and advertising scenarios and generally everyone loses except the lawyers.

 

[RAP]

Hey ian, your comment is inflamatory and insulting. Misleading? War and Peace and law books, not enough space is there for them on this site!

From the women's point of view, to walk out and see a stranger photographing her building, property can be very upsetting and I can sympathize with her. How does she know what the photos will be used for, who the photographers is, if he is telling the truth as to his intentions? For all she knows, he could be working for a developer who has his eye on her property. Evictions in the name of eminent domain come pretty cheap these days.

Cindy Crawford is worth millions and certainly has the resources to sue who ever she wants. The poor women does not. To even make the comparison is ridiculous.

 

[ian_greant]

Hey ian, your comment is inflamatory and insulting. Misleading?

RAP

There was no intent to inflame or insult.

The fact remains. In many situations you do not need a release to publish.

I was going to use a story of a nice English cottage that sued for mis captioning in an editorial but the details were a little long and I didn't feel like researching it to make sure my facts were straight. The crawford example seemed straightforward enough for most people to get the point... hmmm

The size of a persons bank account or how famous they are does not change the law... or at least how we as photographers should approach it.

Stating that you need a release before you publish amounts to blatant misinformation. I'm sorry you feel insulted that I corrected this but... If you said the times for txp320 @ 1600 was 2.5 minutes in D76 at 50 F. I'd step up and correct you as well.

 

[Ed Sukach]

The best advice I could offer here is "role paying". Imagine yourself sitting on a jury, hearing the pros and cons of a legal action.

First, the Court would, likely be a Civil one. You would hear arguments dealing, in the end, with money. Was there financial gain? Was anyone entitled to share in that gain? If so, how much? If you were to drive a new model Cadillac into a "Great Gatsby- type Estate", and photograph it for a national advertising campaign, it probably would not be difficult to prove that the location added value to the work; and those who own the Estate should have a reasonable share in the monetary gain from that work. Get a Property Release before you do the work. The same applies to a model ... human or otherwise: They are entitled to a reasonable share in the monetary gain.

It should be remembered that Model Releases and Property Releases are *CONTRACTS*, and all the tests for the legality of contracts apply... ESPECIALLY that of "Good Faith". Example: If you were to contract with a model for "Figure Study" work - nudes - with the understanding that the end use would be for Gallery exhibition, and publication in "Fine Art" Journals - and
use those images to advertise a "heavy porn" site - that would be a BREACH OF GOOD FAITH - and most probably would void the Model Release - contract.

An area which could conceivably wind up in Criminal Court would be a "Invasion of Privacy". If someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy and you photograph them, violating their privacy - it spells BIG trouble. One cannot thrust a camera over the top of a stall in a public restroom and photograph someone therein. That is a invasion of privacy. A more gray area could be an accident in a public place: a girl is walking down a public beach - with no immediate expectation of privacy, and the top of her bathing suit falls off. That would be far more difficult for a jury to decide.

Now, all that said... You have taken a photograph of a building accessed in public space. You have reasonably assumed that there would be no harm to anyone. Someone goes into orbit from this. You tried to negotiate - explain - reach some sort of agreement - in GOOD FAITH. You did not - and do not intend to use the use this in advertising, or to cause derision: "Look at this Run-Down Example of (ethnic slur) Laziness."

I'd say you were home free. All that would be left is your own sense of morality and propriety.

 

[scootermm]

an update:

I took an 8x10 print by on friday afternoon. she (her name is marilyn) seemed very stunned and somewhat uncomfortable when I came in to the restaurant and gave her the print. Likely due to her feeling somewhat embarrased by how openly rude she had been.

Hopefully it will cause her to rethink how she handles a simliar situation in the future.

 

[Aggie]

Ed there is a very prominent case that was settled about 4 years ago in the USA. A man standing on a public sidewalk took a picture of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sued the photographer over it saying he had no right to photograph their building and it was hurting them monitarily since they sold postcards and such of the exterior. The ruling came down in favor of the photographer. He was on a public sidewalk. He was taking a picture of a public building. That building being public by virtue of it being open for business to the public. It was and is today a precedent setting case for the photographer.

That said, Scootermm you took a picture of a public building from a public spot. You are well within your rights if you choose to sell an enlargement of that photo. I personally would go and talk to the person first before taking the picture. I had one nasty incident where I was accused of setting up a cannon aimed at a ladies house. In fact that was the only time I had not asked permission in advance. It was 6 am or there abouts, and I didn't want to disturb anyone that early. I have since taken photos and given them to the people of the places I have shot. all were very happy.

 

[jovo]

from one of our own (apug's) sponsors (i think), i.e. photopermit.org, comes this: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf.

Lawyers seem to be ethically bound to resist the temptation to guarantee outcomes of specific civil or criminal cases, but do not seem to be reticent about advising us about what our rights are absent a charge against us. This link seems to be rather comprehensive. I hope it helps.

 

[RAP]

These days we live in a world where everybody has rights that superceed everybody elses. Just because someone has the legal right, does not give them the moral right and exercising your legal rights does not always turn out for the best and more often tred on the rights of others. Just ask all those who have been victimized and villified by the media in the name of ratings. Or those who have been victimized by local planning boards and lost there homes and livelyhoods in the name of so called progress.

Correction? Please, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, right? Or visa versa.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

Ken M and I had an experiance at this Yosemite workshop where one of the particpants would set up his camera right next to someone elses, look at their shutter speed and fstop, set his, shoot film then move on to the next person and repeat. He even had the audacity to say "go find the next shot, I'll shoot this one and meet you there". After a couple days of this he got frustrated and left the workshop stating"He was not learning". Course no one would talk to him and he was so busy stealing he forgot to look and listen for himself.

 

[roteague]

I took an 8x10 print by on friday afternoon. she (her name is marilyn) seemed very stunned and somewhat uncomfortable when I came in to the restaurant and gave her the print.

That was a wonderful thing to do. I'm sure it will influence her in the future.

 

[John McCallum]

Ken M and I had an experiance at this Yosemite workshop where one of the particpants would set up his camera right next to someone elses, look at their shutter speed and fstop, set his, shoot film then move on to the next person and repeat. He even had the audacity to say "go find the next shot, I'll shoot this one and meet you there". After a couple days of this he got frustrated and left the workshop stating"He was not learning". Course no one would talk to him and he was so busy stealing he forgot to look and listen for himself.

LOL. I know the type - so eager to learn, but so slow to understand what it takes to get there.

It's been said many times before that it's important to consider the customs/laws and sensitivities of the local people before pointing your camera. I'm normally very conscious of this when we travel. But an interesting thing happed when we drove to one of the picturesque, white sandy beaches on Upolu Island in American Samoa.
I stopped the car at the end of the beach in order to put one of those classic palms-over-white-sand-with-tropical-flowers-in-foreground shots on velvia. I was interrupted even before my holidaymode finger had reached the shutter release button by an elderly lady who had managed to beeline it across the road in record time, and hold her hand out under my nose.
Now having grown up in a country where you can poke your camera against the glass of Government Buildings in the capital city at 3:00am and photograph the grandiose hallways of power without being bothered (won't bore you with the story this time), I was just a little bothered. It was obvious what she was expecting; but I guess my surprised reaction showed up her less than confident conviction, and she sauntered off hunched over, in that manner of the defeated.
Later I checked the situation with some local friends who informed me the custom of land ownership does in fact extend to quite extraordinary lengths in Samoa. However, money only sometimes changes hands between photographers and the *particulary* entrepreneurial landowners. So I was off the hook.
Doesn't stop me getting a very slight pang of guilt each time I look at the slide though.

This is the beach, not my photo.

 

[ian_greant]

Ken M and I had an experiance at this Yosemite workshop where one of the particpants would set up his camera right next to someone elses, look at their shutter speed and fstop, set his, shoot film then move on to the next person and repeat. He even had the audacity to say "go find the next shot, I'll shoot this one and meet you there". After a couple days of this he got frustrated and left the workshop stating"He was not learning". Course no one would talk to him and he was so busy stealing he forgot to look and listen for himself.

I'm surprised his learning wasn't handicaped with a tripod strike to the back of the head!

Obviously the workshop was only attended by the most gentle and patient of photographers. The lessons some of the hotter tempered among us might have taught him could have been tragically funny.