armchair lawyers help...please

[jmiller66]

I shoot at a lot of local youth league baseball games. I typically shoot both teams then develop 4x6's and bring them to a later game for the parents to see. The money is not super good, but I hope to get some team picture work out of it later. Ninety-seven out of 100 parents love the pictures and buy them, or politely decline. However, there always those three cowboy types who's seen one too many episodes of Matlock and think they know everything. The responses range from somewhat civil to threats of breaking my camera if I take anymore pics of their kids. I stay as polite and accomodating as possible but when they mention it's illegal and I could get in trouble, sometimes I have to stand my ground a little. Sooo...is there anything in US law that requires permission to take someone's pic in a public place? Keep in mind a release is not at issue because I only sell the image to the parents.

The parks and recreation department know who I am and that I am taking the pics but have declined to issue photogs any kind of official identification.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/buttons/report.gif (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/report.php?p=3401544) http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[blackshadow]

It's not illegal to take the photos - if anyone objects and tries to try it on tell them to learn about copyright and the rights of photographers.

[Seefutlung]

There must be a ton of stuff on the internet that will support your position. Try photoattorney.com ... and/or do some googling. ... Also pass out business cards to those that object ... to be on the safe side since you are charging a profit for your wares and since you are "working" on public property you better get a business license for the City you are working ... getting a license will set you back quite a few 4x6's ... but usually it is a mandatory city requirement and it will further legitimize your activity.

Gary

[xpsentity]

No one in the US has the expectation of privacy whilst in a public place.

Does that answer your question? :D

[Jon, The Elder]

No one in the US has the expectation of privacy whilst in a public place.

Right on.

However; They do have a right to compensation if you make a profit from the image, and they are the main focal point of the image.

[gjl711]

Reposting this handy little one-sheet. I carry this in my bag just in case I ever run into a situation as you are having. It states that anyone in a public place is fair game except in instances where privacy is to be expected like washrooms and such. You are within your legal rights.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[Jon, The Elder]

Thanks.

[pagnamenta]

Because you're selling the images to the parents, it doesn't matter. You can't go selling images of kids to other people. Not only are they minors, you have no release, but you already have that covered. I strongly recommend you print out the file two posts up. I also heard on another thread of contacting your attorney general and asking him to put in writing that photographers can take photos of anyone in a public place. Make copies of this and hand it out if you get any trouble.

[blackshadow]

You can't go selling images of kids to other people.

Says who?

As long as the photos aren't for commercial purposes (advertising), misrepresenting the subject or used to defame the subject you should be fine selling the photos.

[pagnamenta]

So you have no problem selling images of 12 year olds to pedophile's? Unless you know your customers very well, you can't be sure. Yes, you can easily say that once you sell the prints it's out of your control.

I don't believe that anyone would buy a picture of someone else in the first place. For the original poster, if you want to avoid problems, you won't sell images of kids to other parents, especially if those parents don't want their kids photos taken in the first place.

[gjl711]

So you have no problem selling images of 12 year olds to pedophile's? ....
That’s a completely different issue. First, pedophiles rarely have a huge P tattooed on their foreheads announcing to the world that they have that tendency, second, if your taking the types of pictures they are interested in then there is a bigger problem. And lastly, if it were so simple that just a picture of a kid would send these guys into a tizzy, then any clothing catalog, Boys Life, Time magazine, People, or any number of other magazines would suffice as they contains thousands of pictures of kids.

[pagnamenta]

As a businessmen you have to think of these things. While it's rare, you never know who your customer really is. Of course they won't have a giant P tattooed on their forehead. I could have used homosexuals or racists as examples. The point is, you don't know who you're selling to. So you can see, it isn't a completely different issue.

[elguapo]

Says who?

As long as the photos aren't for commercial purposes (advertising), misrepresenting the subject or used to defame the subject you should be fine selling the photos.

That is my understanding also: commecial use means endorsing a product or idea (toothpaste, religions, preperation H, etc...) Just the act of selling a photo of someone isn't commercial use.

Selling a photo to a newspaper or magazine for editorial use is not commercial use.

And although I would not do it, even if you did sell a photo for commerical use without a model release, it is my understanding that as long as you made it clear and document to the company that you do not have a model release, it is the publisher, not you as the photographer, that carries the liability and would be sued.

While I would point out to the parents that it isn't illegal to photography anyone in a public place via the suggestion already provided, I would ask which is their child and tell them that I will do my best not to take any photos of them. If you are trying to make money selling photos to the family, it doesn't make sense to waste time photographing a kid whose family you know will not buy photos.

If they even made a threat to touch me or break my equipment, I'd call the police. I do not tolerate threats or voilence and don't want anyone as a customer that would resort to such.

[Seefutlung]

So you have no problem selling images of 12 year olds to pedophile's? Unless you know your customers very well, you can't be sure. Yes, you can easily say that once you sell the prints it's out of your control.

I don't believe that anyone would buy a picture of someone else in the first place. For the original poster, if you want to avoid problems, you won't sell images of kids to other parents, especially if those parents don't want their kids photos taken in the first place.

I'll answer that ... "Yes, of course he/she does." The same answer 99.9% to 100% of the people here will also give. Under your reasoning all material from newspapers to magazines to postcards to movies to greetings cards to paintings to coloring books, et al can only be sold to people of whom the seller personally knows not to be a pedophile??? How rational is that? If people had a "personal" problem with having their children photographed in public ... then guess what ... they don't have to take out in public ... or they can do like Michael Jackson and cover up the faces of their children. The paranoia or the bad experience of a small minority should not be used to change the fabric of our society or the foundation of our country.

The 1st Amendment establishes the right for photogs to photograph anything in the public arena an extension/inclusion of "freedom of speech". This freedom of speech right is for the greater good of society ... and people who are paranoid that behind every camera is a pedophile are in my opinion either ignorant or a crackpot or both.

I have two beautiful daughters ... and yes I am very protective of them ... but creating and enforcing a law which modifies the 1st Amendment into making an exception for children is beyond reason. What other paranoid modifications should also be included with children ... how about breasts??? After all photos of breasts may be sold to sick minds who after being aroused by purchasing said photos in which one can see women's breasts ... may go and rape someone.

I think there is far more rape going on in this society that child molestation ... so lets add photos of children and photos with breasts ...

*sigh*

Just Ranting ...

Gary

[3Turner]

So you have no problem selling images of 12 year olds to pedophile's? Unless you know your customers very well, you can't be sure. Yes, you can easily say that once you sell the prints it's out of your control.

I don't believe that anyone would buy a picture of someone else in the first place. For the original poster, if you want to avoid problems, you won't sell images of kids to other parents, especially if those parents don't want their kids photos taken in the first place.

In addition to those posts above which explain very well the situations at hand...I do believe that you are missing the point. No one, even the OP, would want to sell to a pedophile a shot of one persons child. However, I do not think that a pedophile is going to own an advertizing business or text book printing company (and had not been caught collecting photos) that could use photos of children...but of course some would need a release.

If a parent asks that a photographer not take photos of thier children, then you have to respectfully comply with thier request. Now, educate them on photographers rights and public property, but never make a situation bigger than it has to be. Think of it this way, if they have no camera and you're the only one taking pictures...its thier loss in not getting those good shots you took of thier child making the big play on the field.;)

[pagnamenta]

I originally said that you can't photograph kids because of this reason; some parents hate having their kids photographed. The photographer can either not photograph the subject or he can, it's his preference. One of my previous teachers was stalked by a student and she now asks any photographer not to take her photo.

And yes, thank god we have the 1st Amendment, we wouldn't be able to do what we want without it.

[elguapo]

If a parent asks that a photographer not take photos of thier children, then you have to respectfully comply with thier request .

When you say "have to..." do you mean it is a legal requirement for photographers to stop taking photos of a child in a public place at a parent's request?

[3Turner]

When you say "have to..." do you mean it is a legal requirement for photographers to stop taking photos of children if the parents request it?

No, I did not mean it as a legal requirement...only to be nice to the parent and to keep them from becoming ugly (or uglier) with you...in a hostile sense:rolleyes: .

[elguapo]

Yeah, I did not mean it as a legal requirement...only to be nice to the parent and to keep them from becoming ugly (or uglier) with you...in a hostile sense:rolleyes: .

Absolutely agree with that. If they are ugly about it, you don't want to do business with them anyway.

[3Turner]

...some parents hate having their kids photographed. I understand your point and I can see how some parents may not like that thier children are photographed at a public location where a photographer is shooting...they (the parent) may have some underlying problem like Camera Envy of the photographer:rolleyes: . Most parents only have a P&S.


The photographer can either not photograph the subject or he can, it's his preference. One of my previous teachers was stalked by a student and she now asks any photographer not to take her photo. Your right that the photographer has a choice on subjects, but respecting someones wishes is always a good outlook on life..yours mainly incase its a big brute doing the threats to hurt you physically. Its an unfortunate thing that your teacher had to go through that, but if I happen to be a tourist somewhere, say Niagra Falls, and she were there and I was taking shot after shot...if she told me to stop, I'd politely ask her to move out of frame. The interest is on the scene, not who is in it (for me at least).

[pagnamenta]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shooting people in public. I am a huge proponent of our rights and I intend to see to it that we keep them. It's just interesting how some people understand situations, some people are so dumb.

[Seefutlung]

... If a parent asks that a photographer not take photos of thier children, then you have to respectfully comply with thier request. Now, educate them on photographers rights and public property, but never make a situation bigger than it has to be. Think of it this way, if they have no camera and you're the only one taking pictures...its thier loss in not getting those good shots you took of thier child making the big play on the field.;)

I echo your comments ... as a parent I would hope/expect that a photog would comply with my wishes as well ...

Unfortunately, I have seen many parents become completely unglued and verbally assault photogs as they present their cease and desist request.

Gary

[bob393]

No one in the US has the expectation of privacy whilst in a public place.

Does that answer your question? :D

Yup, that says it!

[BOUNCINGNRG]

You lot seem to know you stuff, does anyone know about this situation in the UK........... i heard of a case a while ago in the UK where a photographer was caught taking photo's of children and was charged by the police (i'm not sure what he was charged with). Even though the case was throwen out, it got alot of media attention and ruined his rep.

So i think this is a subject that has to be approached carefully and morally.

[LBaldwin]

The one thing I would say, make sure that you have an attorney on retainer (you are running a business) and make sure that you have liability insureance that covers frivilous lawsuits. If they request that you not shoot their kids than comply, why waste the CF card space. But at the same time if they persist in open ridicule, hand them your attornies card and ask if they would like to set up the payments now, what payment. The one that I get from suing your ass off for interferring with my business.

In other words if you are clearly conducting legit business, have the proper licenses and charge the proper sales taxes, then you have good grounds to take legal action against them. It seems that kids sports are chock full of self appointed a$$halfs and the like. My tolarnce level has receded in recent years.... oh well.

Les