At least in the US, if it can be seen from public property, a street or sidewalk one can photograph it as long as it is not on a military base where it may be illegal to photograph classified military property.
Can you substantiate that? Or is did you just pull it out of thin air?
You probably hope no one sees you photographing your neighbor with a 1000mm lens through the cracks in the curtains.
At least in the US, if it can be seen from public property, a street or sidewalk one can photograph it as long as it is not on a military base where it may be illegal to photograph classified military property.
Once again, substantiation? I know of at least one law in California:
647j PC is the California Penal Code section that makes it a crime for a person unlawfully to invade someone else’s privacy. A conviction is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000.00.
There are three ways a person can incur invasion of privacy charges:
Examples
- by using a device (like binoculars) to view someone inside a private room,
- by secretly photographing or recording a person’s body under the clothing for sexual arousal, or
- by secretly recording or photographing someone in a private room to view that person’s body.
- watching a woman undress in her bedroom while using a telescope or periscope to see her intimate body parts.
- recording someone undressing in a fitting room / changing room with a mobile phone or camcorder.
- a peeping tom taking upskirt photographs of females in a shopping mall.
OK. But one cannot use the recognizable images of people and certain buildings even in public places for commercial purposes (like ads, on T-shirts or mugs) without the owner's permission. The Chrysler Building in NYC and Disney Hall in LA are examples. Use for editorial and art is a different matter.I was referring to building, object and people out in public view, not being a peeping tom.
OK. But one cannot use the recognizable images of people and certain buildings even in public places for commercial purposes (like ads, on T-shirts or mugs) without the owner's permission. The Chrysler Building in NYC and Disney Hall in LA are examples. Use for editorial and art is a different matter.
Earlier in this thread the conversation turned to photographing people without their consent. In addition to the example of the photographer Arne Svenson photographing people in the building across from his studio with a long lens that I cited earlier (he prevailed, by the way) there was the case of Philip-Lorca DiCorcia holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs.
Not to drag this out, but selling your photographs is not an issue unless it is for commercial purposes (like advertising).Ah, but I rarely take portraits and when I do it is of family members, I avoid having any people in my landscape photographs, and I do not sell photographs. So I would not be taking any of the photographs discussed in this thread.
In Europe, particularly in France, there is the so called 'Droit a l'image' meaning that everyone is the only person (solennellement) who can decide what happens with the representation in public HIS 'figure' (and propriety).
About 10 years ago, I was shooting in the street in Lille (North of France) for a business brochure on bakery supplies for an advertising agency.
As I had to shoot a shop window of a (well known) bakery with the belfry reflected in it, on that moment, just by accident, meters away there was a woman passing by on the sidewalk nobody saw in the heat of the fight.
When the photo was published she could be recognised reflected in the window, "the dolls started dancing"! She claimed € 20 000.- and got it...
So, when you take a photograph of a person on the street without his/her consent, and publish it, troubles will start.
In France all publishing is considered as commercial when any kind of 'carrier' incorporating that image/text is sold or used for business purpose.
Not to drag this out, but selling your photographs is not an issue unless it is for commercial purposes (like advertising).
No politics, please.
Personally, I don't feel right taking a photograph of someone who appears to be down and out. I don't photograph people anyway, so no biggy.
I don't know European law. US law is that using a likeness in an advertisement is not OK without consent. For models, of course, but especially for famous or known people because it might be considered an endorsement or advocating the position of the ad.
Commerce, as in selling a photograph taken in a public place, requires no consent.
I was taking pictures downtown and was approached by an angry down-on-his-luck guy who wanted $100 if I'd taken his picture. I handed him my camera and said, "Here, you take my picture and you give me a $100." His whole demeanor changed and we got along fine after that.
I might have offered my camera, but I would not have handed it to him.
Of course you all realize you are stealing these people's souls when you photograph them.
I'm curious. To me there is absolutely no direct link between legal and ethical matters—unless, of course, one lives in a religious state, in which case you wouldn't be talking about ethics, but of morals. So, enlighten me: why is it that a discussion about ethical matters in photography—street photography, to be precise—always turns into a discussion about legal matters in photography?
I'm not talking just here. I see it often, on other plateformes, whenever there is a discussion about the ethics of photographing the poor, the homeless, migrants, refugees, etc., whether in one's country or in another's. You'd think it would be possible to discuss whether or not an ethical frame of reference for photography is possible—yes, a very complicated matter, but worthy of discussion—, but it seems difficult for the discussion not to veer towards "is it legal or not."
Worries me a bit, I must say. Seems like the very legitimate, and very compassionate, concern towards the beggar—"should I do it?"—has been obliterated in favor of the concern towards the photographer—"Am I allowed to do it?"
I cant see anything ethically wrong with taking photos of people in public (the laws take care of what you shouldn't do). The course of homelessness is unrelated and if anything would benefit by more exposure.
I do think people who demonize people with their own weird ethics to be a huge problem and I will challenge anyone who does so.....and I do.
...From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition. However, I thought it morally wrong to photograph.
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?