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.
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.
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.
Making copies for one classroom's worth of instruction is one thing. But does that include using a picture in a teaching book that has 100,000 sales distribution?
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.
I am not suggesting you are making up situations.
I am asking why people are so worried about something that is not their responsibility and is beyond their control.
You MIGHT take a picture of somebody that experiences fallout from the photo.?
I have never shot a protest where i was the only camera.
If you do not take the photo, i guarantee others will.
If people are worried about being recognized while participating in a public protest they should not protest. That is on them, not the photographers.
I have asked "what rules" and what protest or any other details.
All i have seen so far is some people are worried about what Might/Could happen.
Of all the hundreds of protests and thousands of pictures taken, how many times has somebody been singled out for "punishment" because of a photo.
Not talking about Gladio stuff, or CoIntelPro photos....... talking about Photos from amateur cameras like the OP
Obviously I am a political person and count myself as member of the community I am protesting with, so I don't want me taking pictures endangering or harming the people I am with. Now the way I would take pictures at these events would probably align with the rules (since I care for the community) but I don't know how to show that while working protests, just taking pictures of the "opposing side" also doesn't do justice to the act of documenting political tensions and also brings harder bias and a personal kind of danger with it.
My god. It seems endless. I have been in classes where the teaching was from a copy of the book with 100,00 sales.
Were the pioctures paid for by the publisher? Or does this fall into fair use?
Were the pioctures paid for by the publisher? Or does this fall into fair use?
This should help you more fully understand the extent of Fair Use:
What does that mean?
If I were a member of an organization and didn’t feel I understood their predilections or how I would/could be symbiotic with their cause, I’d work on improving the relationship to address any gaps rather than wonder about legality or ethics…
The legality conversation started because a highly respected (at least by me) long-term member posted a very erroneous version of the legality of public photography. I very quickly (maybe too quickly) reacted to it because we, as photographers, are constantly subject to widespread public misunderstanding of what we are allowed to do in public.
In the Unites States, anyway.
On the one time I attempted "street" photography, I had a woman go nuts on me and make 3 calls to 911 because they weren't complete fools and took their sweet time to show up to her dire emergency. She actually called men with guns to respond to an old fart with a dangerous, long-obsolete film camera. I stuck around because it would look like I was running away, and I wanted to make sure that her pack of lies (yes, lots of lies) was not all they heard. Fortunately, I was well aware that my local police are solidly trained on the legalities of public photography, and I wanted to watch them shoot her down. It was glorious.
There is a fundamental dichotomy here - or perhaps it's a trichotomy? Or is there a 4 headed version of same?
In most cases, in common law jurisdictions like the USA and Canada, there is nothing legal stopping you from taking photographs in a public place.
There are some - very few - legal restrictions about what you can do with those photographs. Those legal restrictions relate to public rights, enforceable by public interests - aka the government.
In addition there are also distinct private rights attached to some of the subjects that might be found in those photographs. Things like images of individuals, signs, art work or commercial items that form part of the image depicted in those photographs.
Some of those private rights were originally recognized as part of historic common law. Others were/are purely creations of statute law.
All of those private interests aren't enforced by the government - it's up to you, and your dime, if you want to do so. In some cases that means the incredibly expensive, time consuming and complex civil courts. In other cases, governments have created other specialized mechanisms for enforcement, but it still will be up to you, and your dime, to make use of them. And in virtually every case, recognition and enforcement of those rights has been modified through statutory provisions.
In each case though, it isn't illegal to breach a private right - there is merely an available personal remedy for the breach.
Just as there is no legal right to free speech in the USA - just a prohibition stopping the government from legislating against free speech.
It's Canadian Thanksgiving Monday here today. There is nothing in the law here that prevents the hosts at Thanksgiving dinner from shutting down talk about politics, religion, or for that matter the joys of Hasselblads or camera repairs at the Thanksgiving dinner table - none of the family have any rights to say anything about those or any other topics, if the hosts say no. And it will be exactly the same situation and rules when American Thanksgiving comes around, both on this side, and on the other side of that Canada-USA border which is just 13 blocks south of where I'm sitting. As long as no laws are passed, you folks to the south of here have no grounds to complain of illegality if your hosts tell you and your quarrelsome relatives to stop arguing about something.
In other jurisdictions - particularly in civil law jurisdictions where Napoleonic Codes or other similar provisions are employed, the legal rules take different forms. As a result, there are legal rights, responsibilities and remedies - both public and private - that take different form. Where you are is critical to the question.
But all of that is different from what was asked by the OP - they didn't ask about legalities, or personal or public rights - they asked about ethics and values and how to deal with people's interests and feelings. Some of that is complicated by overlaps with legal rights, responsibilities and remedies. Or even worse, complicated by misunderstandings about legal rights, responsibilities and remedies. In any event, the answer is highly dependent on expectations of the people in the groups involved - a sort of cultural expectation reality.
There are members here on Photrio who have experience navigating the waters of associating photographically with protests and the people who participate in them. That includes experience with the people who respond to or have to react to such protests. Ding so effectively involves techniques, knowledge and, most importantly skill interacting with people in challenging circumstances.
In my case, any experience I've had in dealing with such things is both relatively small, and quite dated, so I'm unlikely to be much help. But there are others here who are much better equipped to assist or to make appropriate referrals.
I said the followng in Post 8:
"Decide if you are a journalist or a protestor. Don't take photographs at events you are part of that your community doesn;t want you to photograph. Become a journalist at other protests you; 're not involved in."
I said the followng in Post 8:
"Decide if you are a journalist or a protestor. Don't take photographs at events you are part of that your community doesn;t want you to photograph. Become a journalist at other protests you; 're not involved in."
They shot her down? Rather drastic. Good for them.
The legality conversation started because a highly respected (at least by me) long-term member posted a very erroneous version of the legality of public photography. I very quickly (maybe too quickly) reacted to it because we, as photographers, are constantly subject to widespread public misunderstanding of what we are allowed to do in public.
In the Unites States, anyway.
On the one time I attempted "street" photography, I had a woman go nuts on me and make 3 calls to 911 because they weren't complete fools and took their sweet time to show up to her dire emergency. She actually called men with guns to respond to an old fart with a dangerous, long-obsolete film camera. I stuck around because it would look like I was running away, and I wanted to make sure that her pack of lies (yes, lots of lies) was not all they heard. Fortunately, I was well aware that my local police are solidly trained on the legalities of public photography, and I wanted to watch them shoot her down. It was glorious.
Which is one option.
I have a friend who spent years as a photographer for the Sierra Club, which probably meant he photographed some protests from the perspective of that group, and as a recognized supporter.
At the same time he was doing commercial work for others, was working as a news stringer, and did his own creative work.
Photography is a mode of communication. There is nothing that says we have to restrict our communication efforts to just photography, nor is there any reason to limit our engagement with the world to just our photography. What I believe the OP is asking about is how to combine the elements of his/her world.
The OP's concern is that he would offend the group he supports. Re-read his OP post. That's why I suggested he limit his photography to other issues.
This is not supposed to be a political post/thread
Now that's settled, I hope to find some answers to my questions. I've been on many protests over the last years, still I rarely take pictures there because I am aware of the "rules" that are established in a lot of different protest communitities. Not only do I know the rules, I am also painfully aware of the threat that pictures taken at protests can mean to the people in the pictures and therefore understand the skepticism on journalists.
Obviously I am a political person and count myself as member of the community I am protesting with, so I don't want me taking pictures endangering or harming the people I am with.
Now the way I would take pictures at these events would probably align with the rules (since I care for the community) but I don't know how to show that while working protests, just taking pictures of the "opposing side" also doesn't do justice to the act of documenting political tensions and also brings harder bias and a personal kind of danger with it.
I guess the question is: If you are open about and willing to accept the fact that your way of documenting is biased by your opinions, how do you document the issues you care for without alienation from the community you care for. Especially when the consequences of people taking pictures is a valid concern that I share myself.
I don't know, maybe this is a silly question and the best answer would probably be somewhere between communication with the people being concerned with a photographer present and clearly showing in some way that you count yourself as part of the movement. Still as a photography enthusiast with passion for documentary and journalism, maybe some wiser ones have insights and can help me with the question I'm battling with.
Cheers, I hope this is relevant and correctly placed
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?