Candid Photos of People on the Street

[AntoineL]

I often like shooting candid photos of people on the street or public events. Most are strangers and most are unaware of the photos I have taken. Can I legally post these pictures? If not, then what form of permission do I need? :roll:

[TeraGram93013]

In order for anyone to give you a definitive answer, you're going to need to supply us with more information.

At the very least we need to know where you live.

Where do you want to post these images?

Will you be making a profit on these images?

[Yance]

You mean post the pictures here? Of course, there is no law against that that I know of in the US. Unless you were taking pictures of naked people through the windows of their homes....

[Ikinaa]

You mean post the pictures here? Of course, there is no law against that that I know of in the US. Unless you were taking pictures of naked people through the windows of their homes....

huh... what about finnish laws... this server is in finland (i think), so normally (IMO) finnish laws apply here, and not the laws of the country from where the people are who are posting?
Or am I mistaken?

[Pekka]

You mean post the pictures here? Of course, there is no law against that that I know of in the US. Unless you were taking pictures of naked people through the windows of their homes....

huh... what about finnish laws... this server is in finland (i think), so normally (IMO) finnish laws apply here, and not the laws of the country from where the people are who are posting?
Or am I mistaken?

This server is in USA. I'm Finnish and own the site and rent the server from Finland. Makes it pretty hard to say what law should be applied. I suggest each poster follows the law of his/her own country.

In Finland it is legal to photograph people on public places. Where and how you can publish them depends on content of the photo and where it is published and in what spirit. If the photos are taken on public place and do not make people look bad (e.g. front shot of a businessman pants down on senate square) then don't post. If you take a shot of face of a sad child and title it "incest is a serious problem" then that will clearly mark that child an incest victim and that connection makes publishing illegal (or not strictly speaking illegal but you can be sued and they win). If you title it in some other way then it's ok.

Check your conscience first.

[AntoineL]

The photos I'm talking about are all done in good taste. Never to humiliate anyone.

By posting, I mean here or other galleries.

Never to sell or make profit.

This is a hobby for me and I take a lot of pride in my photos.
:lol:

[TeraGram93013]

And you live where?

This is one of those things that is dependent upon where you live.

[Ikinaa]

You mean post the pictures here? Of course, there is no law against that that I know of in the US. Unless you were taking pictures of naked people through the windows of their homes....

huh... what about finnish laws... this server is in finland (i think), so normally (IMO) finnish laws apply here, and not the laws of the country from where the people are who are posting?
Or am I mistaken?

This server is in USA. I'm Finnish and own the site and rent the server from Finland. Makes it pretty hard to say what law should be applied. I suggest each poster follows the law of his/her own country.


Check your conscience first.

ok... i think of another thing, Pekka, wherever your server is, you don't store the pictures in the threads, but they are linked to from another place.
Now I don't know, if you're responsible for the content of the links provided on your site.
In Germany for example, people have to put some disclaimer on their site to tell people that they are not responsible for linked pages.
I'm sure it depends on where you are , where your server is, where the people are that link their pictures in the forum.
Unless, you have some sort of disclaimer, you, Pekka, are responsible for the content of the site. Depending on where your server is, you may or may not be responsible for the links provided in the threads (don't know how it is in USA, as your server is there) and people providing pictures via links are responsible for the pictures they host on their own site.
I guess it's a relatively complex subject.
:?: anyone's got any experience with this?

[burkdog]

Well, I believe that here in the US you can take pictures of anyone, anytime, if they have no "reasonable expectation of privacy." There can be situations that arise if you take a picture of a logo or some copyrighted or trademarked thing in the process, but if it is incidental and not the main aspect of the photograph, I think that's ok, too. And I think you can charge money for it, if you want to. People sell candid pictures of celebrities to magazines here everyday.

There is an entire industry here where people take pictures of celebrities cought off guard. If it was illegal to take pictures of people on the street, I'm sure that there would be a lot more lawsuits over the poporazzi than there are.

I think that if someone's image is recognizable, like a movie star or a professional athlete, and subsequently worth money, you can't use it to sell products and stuff like that.

I'm not really sure about any of this, though, but it makes sense to me! :P

[burkdog]

I found this... http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

[Ikinaa]

Well, I believe that here in the US you can take pictures of anyone, anytime, if they have no "reasonable expectation of privacy." There can be situations that arise if you take a picture of a logo or some copyrighted or trademarked thing in the process, but if it is incidental and not the main aspect of the photograph, I think that's ok, too. And I think you can charge money for it, if you want to. People sell candid pictures of celebrities to magazines here everyday.

There is an entire industry here where people take pictures of celebrities cought off guard. If it was illegal to take pictures of people on the street, I'm sure that there would be a lot more lawsuits over the poporazzi than there are.

I think that if someone's image is recognizable, like a movie star or a professional athlete, and subsequently worth money, you can't use it to sell products and stuff like that.

I'm not really sure about any of this, though, but it makes sense to me! :P

hmmm, I believe a lot of magazines (at least here in Europe) are regularly sued for publishing paparazzi-shots.
On the other side, if a celebrity appears in some magazine it's always a good publicity for them (at least models, film-starts, etc)
better have bad publicity than no publicity :twisted:

[hawk911]

I was told once no photography inside a mall after I snapped the picture- guess it's not "public". They did not have anything visible that indicated no photography allowed. I deleted the picture anyway.

[ST77]

I was told once no photography inside a mall after I snapped the picture- guess it's not "public". They did not have anything visible that indicated no photography allowed. I deleted the picture anyway.

Nope a mall is not a "public" place its private property and when on private property you must respect the wish's of the owner and or their representive.

[Marnault]

Unless there is a sign saying no photography, or you have been previously told, it is implied that you can take pictures, that is until you are asked to stop by the owner/security guard.

You didn't need to delete the picture. But it can help diffuse a situation, but generally I would never delete a picture I took within my legal rights unless I think the person will react violently (which has never happened to me at least).

[jbimages]

I found this... http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

That link is ok for people in the US, but while the Internet is global, laws are not. Its something that needs to be checked in the country one is in at the time.

One of our government departments is running a TV campaign at the moment along the lines of the differing laws regarding photography in various countries. Next time I see it I'll pay a bit more attention to it and get the web address.

As far as publication is concerned, I think the latest ruling here in oz is the place of publication for Internet data is the location at which it is viewed, rather than the location of the server.

[Mum2J&M]

Nope a mall is not a "public" place its private property and when on private property you must respect the wish's of the owner and or their representive.

Yep, I was doing a Q&A for a newspaper with a photographer in a mall once and they told us we weren't allowed to do it in there.