Taking Pics in Public Places....

[mr_clean001]

OK, so I am curious to know how everyone goes about taking pics in public places. I have seen a lot of photos in the forum of buildings and flowers and sunsets, but not many taken at places like fairs or boardwalks or museums - places where people gather. For example, in Boulder there is an open mall called Pearl Street Mall that has street performers and interesting people all the time. I would like to go down there and do a photo essay on the place, but the lack of pics from these types of places is giving me pause.

I've read several articles by photographers that talk about not hiding the fact that you are taking pics, etc. - but like I said - not seeing pics from places like that makes me pause. So what are your opinions or your expierences? Let me know please. I am learning that the advice on this site is outstanding.

[scottbergerphoto]

Legally there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. You can take pictures as you please. You are only limited by your own sense of what is proper, your respect for others, and your need to provide for your own safety. People will generally let you know if they don't want their picture taken. It's best to honor that or risk geting your a** kicked. Avoid flash as that's particlarly irritating to people.
Scott

[Scottes]

Publishing images of people - as far as I know - requires their consent unless it's "editorial" - like for a newspaper or such. Selling these images will very most likely require model releases.

That's how I understand it from lurking such posts. I am nowhere close to being a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I'd recommend researching this, unless this is editorial. Well, even then I'd still recommend it - the fear of being sued for any stupid little thing makes me paranoid.

[G3]

Publishing images of people - as far as I know - requires their consent unless it's "editorial" - like for a newspaper or such. Selling these images will very most likely require model releases.

That's how I understand it from lurking such posts. I am nowhere close to being a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I'd recommend researching this, unless this is editorial. Well, even then I'd still recommend it - the fear of being sued for any stupid little thing makes me paranoid.

Yeah, that's not real clear-cut. Celebreties don't have much recourse when their pictures are published because they have placed themselves in the public eye. Private individuals do have recourse sometimes if you haven't gotten a model release signed, especially if they are singled out in the photo. It's usually not real difficult to get people to sign a model release, though. Carry some around with you and ask before you take their picture, then just ask them to sign a release in case the photo is published. Most people are pretty cooperative. Sometimes someone will object, simply honor their wishes and go find someone else to photograph.

[richardtallent]

I'm stretching *way* back to a class I took in college in Intellectual Property law here, but IIRC:
- Don't shoot after people complain, even in public. Harassment claims still possible, even assault. Doesn't matter if they win or not.
- No need for a model release for non-commercial use.
- No need for a property release for non-commercial use (e.g., photo of a building).
- Model release is a contract and must include compensation of some sort.
- Celebrities have no special rights, actually they have less expectation of privacy from photos take in private settings. They, however, have the same rights to not have their image used commercially w/o permission.
- No need for model/property release if the subject is not identifiable.
- How do you know you *won't* want to later sell a photo for commercial use? If it's possible, why not cover all bases?

Here is an *extensive* treatment on the subject that matches up well with my fuzzy memory:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

[richardtallent]

Oh yeah, one more thing: unless you want the serious gestapo treatment from those "protecting our liberty," make sure you use caution photographing airfields, petroleum refineries, government buildings, etc., even from public roads, especially if you have a beard or are prone to tanning.

[Seamless]

OK, so I am curious to know how everyone goes about taking pics in public places. ... places like fairs ... For example, in Boulder there is an open mall called Pearl Street Mall that has street performers ...

Street performers have rights in their performances, and you may have a real problem with using such images in a commercial context without permission (personal use is probably no problem).

You should also be aware that in some cultures taking a person's photograph is rude or even offensive, but that possibility requires familiarity with your neighborhood as to immigrant or tourist makeup which I lack.

Jay Giusti
Chicago IL

[G3]

OK, so I am curious to know how everyone goes about taking pics in public places. ... places like fairs ... For example, in Boulder there is an open mall called Pearl Street Mall that has street performers ...

Street performers have rights in their performances, and you may have a real problem with using such images in a commercial context without permission (personal use is probably no problem).

You should also be aware that in some cultures taking a person's photograph is rude or even offensive, but that possibility requires familiarity with your neighborhood as to immigrant or tourist makeup which I lack.

Jay Giusti
Chicago IL


Yeah, I ran into that issue one time in Northern Thailand with one of the Hill Tribes. I believe it was the Karen Tribe if I remember correctly. They thought that if you photograph them you steal their soul.

[kahfluie]

When you approach a complete stranger and ask if you can photograph them, how often have they said no?

[TeraGram93013]

Street performers have rights in their performances, and you may have a real problem with using such images in a commercial context without permission (personal use is probably no problem).

Two things:

1. Personal use is almost never a problem in the US. If they're in public, they have absolutely no expectation of privacy.

2. Public performers in open public venues (i.e. those performing on a street corner or other such place where no admission fee extracted by some other entity) have limited rights. Often times these folks must buy a permit from the municipality. For example, anyone performing within Carpinteria CA's Avocado Festival basically rescind any and all commercial rights of their performances during that event. The actual entity you must deal with for commercial use of photographs within that venue is the City of Carpinteria (or rather their agent for that event, Chamber of Commerce, maybe? I forget).

[timmyquest]

Whenever i go into chicago i see crack heads banging on buckets with no rythem let alone tallent. Do they have rights?

[Mills]

How often have any of you just gone out shooting people in a very public place, say Michigan Avenue in my home town? Of course, while trying to avoid all of the crack heads.

[richardtallent]

Whenever i go into chicago i see crack heads banging on buckets with no rythem let alone tallent. Do they have rights?

Whether they are performing or not is not the issue: the issue is their right to restrict you from using their likeness in a commercial way. In other words, yes.

[G3]

When you approach a complete stranger and ask if you can photograph them, how often have they said no?


You would only really need to do that if they were the only subject of the picture or the main subject. I personally have only had maybe two or three people refuse or say they'd rather I didn't photograph them. It's been quite a long time since I did any street photography like that, last time was an assignment for a photography class I was taking several years ago. I just told them what I was doing and asked if it would be OK if I took a picture of them. Then I asked them to sign a Model Release (which was also a part of the class). There was no compensation involved in the Model Releases and the photos were never used for anything other than class critique. The thing is, getting permission to take the picture usually isn't a problem. What is a problem is to get them to forget about it and just go about their business so the photo looks lthe way you want it to (not posed). I ended up doing pictures of people like street vendors, a guy in New Orleans that had a chess table set up on the sidewalk playing people for $10.00 a game, a guy that was unloading trucks of fish, a guy in some sort of uniform playing sax on the sidewalk, street clowns making balloon animals, that sort of thing.

[IndyJeff]

This can get complicated but, to make it easy follow this simple rule. If you take someone's picture for editorial use it is ok. You will still want to get their name for a caption. If you take their picture and want to sell it, that becomes commercial, no matter if it is being used as art, a calender, for an ad, etc...anytime you sell that image, it has become commercial and you must have a model's release. Most commercial sales must be accompanied by a model release or the buyer won't touch it.

Lets say for arguments sake that you are at a festival. A street preformer is doing his juggling act. You snap off a few frames. Later on you are approached by a guy who is with the festival committee and he wants to see some of your shots after the festival is over. You meet with him a week later and he sees the juggler doing his thing with a little kid holding a balloon and a snowcone looking up at him from the side. Great shot, we want this for our brochure next year. You sell it, they put it in ads in the local paper and make a bill board out of it. Guess what? Yep you've now set yourself up for a lawsuit from the kids parents and possibly the juggler himself. Chances are that he signed a release to be able to preform but, if he didn't you will be named in the lawsuit because you took his picture and used it for commercial purposes.

A couple of times the Indy 500 or Brickyard 400 has had a problem with rain. They send a few of us out looking for rain shots. The best way to get the useable shot is to take it, then ask permission to publish it and get their info. I'll bet I have taken at least 100 shots like that and only 2 or 3 times people said, "No, I don't want my picture in the paper." I tried asking first and you just don't get the natural looking shot. What you end up with looks like a posed shot because they are aware that your snapping away at them. Use a long lens and stay back. If they don't notice your shooting them they will be relaxed. If they don't want to sign a release, thank them politly say you understand and that you will delete the images.

[shafiq]

Oh yeah, one more thing: unless you want the serious gestapo treatment from those "protecting our liberty," make sure you use caution photographing airfields, petroleum refineries, government buildings, etc., even from public roads, especially if you have a beard or are prone to tanning.

You crack me up :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :lol: :lol: :D :lol: :lol:

[shafiq]

Oh yeah, one more thing: unless you want the serious gestapo treatment from those "protecting our liberty," make sure you use caution photographing airfields, petroleum refineries, government buildings, etc., even from public roads, especially if you have a beard or are prone to tanning.

You crack me up :lol:

[Seamless]

Two things:

1. Personal use is almost never a problem in the US. If they're in public, they have absolutely no expectation of privacy.

This confuses the inquiry. Right of privacy wasn't the concern being raised. (That said, whether a person is in "public" is not a straightforward analysis. Cases where privacy perhaps suprisingly has been found to have been violated include inside automobiles (and not with darkened windows) and inside "public" toilet stalls. Fitness gym and school locker rooms are ostensibly "public," but many places enforce limitations on photographs.)

2. Public performers in open public venues (i.e. those performing on a street corner or other such place where no admission fee extracted by some other entity) have limited rights. Often times these folks must buy a permit from the municipality.

Implictating First Amendment concerns, public and quasi-public entities nonetheless may impose reasonable time/place/manner restrictions on public performances (e.g. public transit authority designation of portion of subway platform for performers; decibel limits), but that does not address the separate issue of whether a performer retains rights with respect to copyright, publicity or trademark (and state jurisdiction common law and statutory variants). I can hardly imagine a public entity that could constitutionally force a performer to give up those rights--but perhaps the so-called "Patriot Act" incorporates some scenarios.

Jay Giusti
Chicago IL

[TeraGram93013]

This confuses the inquiry. Right of privacy wasn't the concern being raised. (That said, whether a person is in "public" is not a straightforward analysis. Cases where privacy perhaps suprisingly has been found to have been violated include inside automobiles (and not with darkened windows) and inside "public" toilet stalls. Fitness gym and school locker rooms are ostensibly "public," but many places enforce limitations on photographs.)

Fitness gyms and school locker rooms are NOT public. They are decidedly private. In order to be in either one of those venues you must have PERMISSION to be there. Fitness gyms require membership and your memberhip terms will govern what you may or may not do there. Even if the school is a PUBLIC one, the general public does not have the right to wander in and occupy any one square inch of floor space without a whole load of restrictions and limitations, and most specifically they may NOT enter a locker room. So, your argument is specious and if anything confuses the issue much more than my message possibly could have. I was addressing specifically what the OP was questioning.

And I didn't say "Right to Privacy", I said "Expectation of Privacy". In a toilet stall, there IS an expectation of privacy. On the street, eating an ice cream or performing juggling tricks, there is NONE. I can take your picture all day long and unless you specifically ask me to stop AND THEN I continue following you around (which would be harrassment and possibly assault), you have no recourse. Now, if I publish those images in a commercial maner (i.e. not editorial/news), then I've potentially got a problem.

Implictating First Amendment concerns, public and quasi-public entities nonetheless may impose reasonable time/place/manner restrictions on public performances (e.g. public transit authority designation of portion of subway platform for performers; decibel limits), but that does not address the separate issue of whether a performer retains rights with respect to copyright, publicity or trademark (and state jurisdiction common law and statutory variants). I can hardly imagine a public entity that could constitutionally force a performer to give up those rights--but perhaps the so-called "Patriot Act" incorporates some scenarios.

I cited one specific location and event wherein I know the rules. Last October I took a boatload of images at Avocado Fest. I approached many performers asking them to sign a release and each and every one of them told me that they COULD NOT sign it as per their contract with Avocado Fest. From what I gather this has been going on a lot longer than the Patriot Act.

And there's nothing "Constitutional" about it. It is contractual. Big difference.

Also, throwing the First Amendment in here is a BIG red herring. The First Amendment addresses the Right to Free Speech. It DOES NOT address the "Right to Make Money".