Photographing protests from within

[BrianShaw]

I’m curious about how some can participate in this thread without alienating the community you care for.

 

[Kino]

OK, but let me respectfully remind you that about 20 years ago the conversation was:

Film photography is all but dead.
More people are buying digital cameras than Tri-X, APX, Acros, HP5+, Etc etc etc



Nope. Anyone can call himself a journalist. Does make that person a journalist. YouTube is filled with people calling themselves something they are not.

So now, maybe back to trying to answer the OP's question ?

Just as anyone can call themselves a photographer…

 

[Sirius Glass]

If they are in a demonstration, then they have no right to privacy and can be freely photographed.

 

[Paul Howell]

Depends on the country, in the U.S any action or person on public property as long as the action or person is newsworthy there is no expectation of privacy. In other countries privacy of person is more restrictive. In the early 2000s a photographer in Kingman AZ got a shot of Warren Jeffs the leader of a polygamist sect in Colorado City. He sold the shot to the local paper who put it on the wire. A year later he had the image made into T shirts with a snarky caption. Warren Jeffs suited and won as at that point the image was no longer newsworthy.

 

[BrianShaw]

Depends on the country, in the U.S any action or person on public property as long as the action or person is newsworthy there is no expectation of privacy. In other countries privacy of person is more restrictive. In the early 2000s a photographer in Kingman AZ got a shot of Warren Jeffs the leader of a polygamist sect in Colorado City. He sold the shot to the local paper who put it on the wire. A year later he had the image made into T shirts with a snarky caption. Warren Jeffs suited and won as at that point the image was no longer newsworthy.

Are you certain that the criteria is/was newsworthiness? Seems like image use in commerce may have been a more actionable concern.

 

[pbromaghin]

Are you certain that the criteria is/was newsworthiness? Seems like image use in commerce may have been a more actionable concern.

That had to be what it was. In the US there is no law that says it has to be newsworthy, nor any qualifications to be called a journalist. Anything that can be seen from anywhere the viewer is allowed to be is fair game. Security is one's own responsibility. If you don't want to be photographed, stay home with the curtains closed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That had to be what it was. In the US there is no law that says it has to be newsworthy, nor any qualifications to be called a journalist. Anything that can be seen from anywhere the viewer is allowed to be is fair game. Security is one's own responsibility. If you don't want to be photographed, stay home with the curtains closed.

It doesn't matter if the photo was taken in public. You can't use it commercially in an ad or on your product without the person photographed being compensated and giving their permission.

 

[MattKing]

There is a difference between an act being prohibited by public law and an act that brings into existence a claim for compensation for personal damages.
Copyright is a personal right, not a public interest.
Even though that personal right is created by a mixture of common law and statute.

 

[pbromaghin]

Alan, my response assumed this was so when I said, "That had to be what it was".

It doesn't matter if the photo was taken in public. You can't use it commercially in an ad or on your product without the person photographed being compensated and giving their permission

 

[reddesert]

With respect, you guys are talking about whether it's legal to take a photograph of a person in public, while the question the OP asked was (roughly) how to do it ethically or respectfully given the desires or concerns of the particular person/group. And further how to do it while not screwing up one's particular artistic or journalistic project.

 

[BrianShaw]

With respect, you guys are talking about whether it's legal to take a photograph of a person in public, while the question the OP asked was (roughly) how to do it ethically or respectfully given the desires or concerns of the particular person/group. And further how to do it while not screwing up one's particular artistic or journalistic project.

That may be so. It is important to note that the internet is a very questionable place to go for that kind of advice. Soul searching is a much better approach as teh asnwer to the ethical question is an extremely personal decision. It could be fair to assume that those responding regarding the legality consider whatever to be legal to be, for them, ethical as well.

 

[CMoore]

With respect, you guys are talking about whether it's legal to take a photograph of a person in public, while the question the OP asked was (roughly) how to do it ethically or respectfully given the desires or concerns of the particular person/group. And further how to do it while not screwing up one's particular artistic or journalistic project.

Can you give us a scenario or a past example from history where your worry has become reality.?

 

[MattKing]

It could be fair to assume that those responding regarding the legality consider whatever to be legal to be, for them, ethical as well.

Depends on the respondent!
On the one hand, I generally separate the two questions - at least initially.
That is partly a matter of background and training, and partly a matter of inclination.
However it is also true that the roots of most legal prohibitions are founded in questions of values and ethics.
So if something is not legal, it is often wrong.
In addition, of course, there is some side discussion here about copyright.
That isn't so much about right or wrong, but instead about who owns what.

 

[MattKing]

Can you give us a scenario or a past example from history where your worry has become reality.?

I'm not sure which "worry" is being referenced here.

 

[CMoore]

I'm not sure which "worry" is being referenced here.

Yeah..... it is easy to lose track

"how to do it ethically or respectfully given the desires or concerns of the particular person/group. And further how to do it while not screwing up one's particular artistic or journalistic project."

That is 4 just right there.

Why manufacture angst.?
What protest is this.?
How many people are likely to see these pics or Care/Search who is in them.?

Is this "group" a band of outlawed dissidents working to oust a Tyrant, or are these weekend protesters trying to protect abortion rights. or a similar gathering that is very common place in many locales.

Is there any reason to be concerned at all.?
Perhaps some details would clarify the situation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There is a difference between an act being prohibited by public law and an act that brings into existence a claim for compensation for personal damages.
Copyright is a personal right, not a public interest.
Even though that personal right is created by a mixture of common law and statute.

What does that mean?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, my response assumed this was so when I said, "That had to be what it was".

Oh OK. My error.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Depends on the respondent!
On the one hand, I generally separate the two questions - at least initially.
That is partly a matter of background and training, and partly a matter of inclination.
However it is also true that the roots of most legal prohibitions are founded in questions of values and ethics.
So if something is not legal, it is often wrong.
In addition, of course, there is some side discussion here about copyright.
That isn't so much about right or wrong, but instead about who owns what.

These things are also informed by cultural customs. In America, our long history of freedom of speech protects many "rights" that in other countries can be looked down upon and conscripted in many ways that are legal, ethical, and culturally accepted in the US.

 

[pbromaghin]

With respect, you guys are talking about whether it's legal to take a photograph of a person in public, while the question the OP asked was (roughly) how to do it ethically or respectfully given the desires or concerns of the particular person/group. And further how to do it while not screwing up one's particular artistic or journalistic project.

Yes, that was the OP's question. However, the question of whether they can stop a person who is involved in their movement from photographing, is closely related to the question of whether they can legally stop anybody from photographing.

 

[Paul Howell]

That had to be what it was. In the US there is no law that says it has to be newsworthy, nor any qualifications to be called a journalist. Anything that can be seen from anywhere the viewer is allowed to be is fair game. Security is one's own responsibility. If you don't want to be photographed, stay home with the curtains closed.

It not a given law, it is a standard that has been used in court. When the guy in Kingman sold the image the local paper it was part of the news, he did not need the permission of the person who image was used. But when put in a T shirt it was a commercial use and required permission. While at UPI and Reuters we also used the terms newsworthy, given it was a fuzzy concept.

 

[reddesert]

Yes, that was the OP's question. However, the question of whether they can stop a person who is involved in their movement from photographing, is closely related to the question of whether they can legally stop anybody from photographing.

It's not just about whether the subject can legally or physically stop the photographer from photographing, but you get different photos of a cooperative subject vs an uncooperative subject. The OP was clearly asking about how to photograph without alienating the subject or disrupting the event. Of course, the internet is not the only or best place to get advice on that, but one can ask to see if other people have experience with it. However, the advice has to be taken with a grain of salt, just like internet legal advice.

 

[BrianShaw]

… or internet ethical advice!

 

[pbromaghin]

It not a given law, it is a standard that has been used in court. When the guy in Kingman sold the image the local paper it was part of the news, he did not need the permission of the person who image was used. But when put in a T shirt it was a commercial use and required permission. While at UPI and Reuters we also used the terms newsworthy, given it was a fuzzy concept.

You used those terms to clearly put forward that you were using it as part of the "Fair Use" doctrine.

Fair use is not just a court doctrine. It is clearly defined in US copyright law:

"It is now codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright." (lifted from Harvard.edu)

Selling it on a t-shirt is not fair use.

 

[reddesert]

Yeah..... it is easy to lose track

"how to do it ethically or respectfully given the desires or concerns of the particular person/group. And further how to do it while not screwing up one's particular artistic or journalistic project."

That is 4 just right there.

Why manufacture angst.?
What protest is this.?
How many people are likely to see these pics or Care/Search who is in them.?

Is this "group" a band of outlawed dissidents working to oust a Tyrant, or are these weekend protesters trying to protect abortion rights. or a similar gathering that is very common place in many locales.

Is there any reason to be concerned at all.?
Perhaps some details would clarify the situation.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I'm manufacturing angst or making up a situation. The OP clearly asked about it - protestors who are concerned about being photographed. I could name concrete examples, but I predict the thread would deteriorate into a political discussion of the legitimacy of those protestors rather than staying on topic.

There are obvious cases of protestors in repressive countries being concerned about retaliation, but Alex and I argued that such people face more hazards directly from the government than a civilian photographer. There are relatively marginal protest groups in Western countries where individuals are concerned about being photographed because they fear the pictures will get on the internet and be used to 'out' or identify them. Sometimes this is a descendant of genuine concern about government surveillance of political groups, and sometimes it's a romantic idea that the powers that be actually care about a few people protesting. I'll just say that this isn't likely to come up at for ex a Moms Against (Drink Driving / gun violence / etc) march, but at times where some people are wearing bandannas/kerchiefs/whatever over their faces, or Charlottesville, etc.

 

[reddesert]

You used those terms to clearly put forward that you were using it as part of the "Fair Use" doctrine.

Fair use is not just a court doctrine. It is clearly defined in US copyright law:

"It is now codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright." (lifted from Harvard.edu)

Selling it on a t-shirt is not fair use.

There are two different concepts here. Fair use relates to the re-use of a copyrighted work. What the t-shirt case refers to is often called the right of publicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Basically, if you're in a public place and I take a picture of you, I own the copyright to the picture. I could sell it to a newspaper if it's newsworthy. But I can't sell it to put it on a T-shirt or a Wheaties box without your permission.