Asking people for permission to take photos of them

HHMM Spend the $13.00 and give this a watch
I would say that most wouldn't find any of these photographer are producing boring work.
http://everybodystreet​.com/

There is a wikimedia commons page that does a good job of letting you know when you need permission for taking a photo, publishing a photo, and using it commercially.
http://commons.wikimed​ia.org …ific_consent_re​quirements

At first glance it looks like you should (legally) have to ask permission in the Czech Republic to take someones photo. However, there seems to be an exception for "legal official use, scientific use, artistic use and news reporting." I would say that many of us consider our street photography "artistic use" though I don't know if that had further definition through the Czech courts.

That being said... since I live in the US, I never ask permission and I have never been confronted on this practice.

MattPharmD wrote in post #16481216
There is a creative commons page that does a good job of letting you know when you need permission for taking a photo, publishing a photo, and using it commercially.
http://commons.wikimed​ia.org …ific_consent_re​quirements

At first glance it looks like you should (legally) have to ask permission in the Czech Republic to take someones photo. However, there seems to be an exception for "legal official use, scientific use, artistic use and news reporting." I would say that many of us consider our street photography "artistic use" though I don't know if that had further definition through the Czech courts.

That being said... since I live in the US, I never ask permission and I have never been confronted on this practice.

Haha, perhaps it'll depend on how good your photo is I can see it now -- the judge deliverying his verdict "The composition is terrible, I dont' like the light and the background is distracting. This is definatlety not art."

Great link btw -- VERY useful for those that travel with a camera

palad1n wrote in post #16480803
I could figure out that most people would be probably bored to death without controversial photos of celebrities in scandal-oriented journalism
Thanks all!

Persons of public interest are in an entirely different situation than the general public.

Actually, at least in the UK, that has been judged in court not to be true and famous people still have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

And besides, how can you possibly draw a line of that one -- surely the very fact that you're able to sell a print of someone means that they're of interest to some else (or no sale)

gjl711 wrote in post #16478451
Here is a link to a lawyer's assessment.
http://www.krages.com/​ThePhotographersRight.​pdf
Pretty much states that as a member of the public, in a public location, you have no rights unless you have secluded yourself in an area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Yeah, nice link and it doesn't mention anything about publishing, commercial or not.

It is useless for the purpose of this thread. We all know the basic rights of taking photographs. The question is, under what circumstances can we post them at what kind of website?

This thread is complete fail except for the wikipedia link which is marginally useful.

It might improve if you stopped posting things that are compeletely wrong

The question is answerered pretty well with the wikipedia link - in the US you can publish anything basically anywhere you want without permission except for commercial use.

The UK is broardly similar though there is the concept of expectation privacy.

For Czech;

MattPharmD wrote in post #16481216
At first glance it looks like you should (legally) have to ask permission in the Czech Republic to take someones photo. However, there seems to be an exception for "legal official use, scientific use, artistic use and news reporting."

This basically sounds like most non-comercial to me.

If you want an absolute definate answer you will have to take each indiviual case to court, simple as that. It's always possbile to attempt to sue someone and win regardless of the exact letter of the law -- the law isn't supposed to be all encompassing, it's supposed to be a framework and guideline.

uOpt wrote in post #16481452
This thread is complete fail except for the wikipedia link which is marginally useful.

[edit] Redacted a snarky comment.

Here's another link with useful info, specifically regarding when you need the subject's permission and written release.
http://danheller.blogs​pot.com …about-model-releases.html

Quoting from Dan Heller's link:
"At the risk of over-simplification, the only time a release is needed is if a person can be seen as supporting or advocating an idea, product or service."

Note that "legal" and "moral" are not always the same thing; in fact, they're often quite at odds.

nathancarter wrote in post #16481494
[edit]Note that "legal" and "moral" are not always the same thing; in fact, they're often quite at odds.

That's because moral is not definable without a specific individual in mind. What I believe is moral you may think is not.

gjl711 wrote in post #16481505
That's because moral is not definable without a specific individual in mind. What I believe is moral you may think is not.

Exactly. So many people are quick to jump to "That's wrong" or "That's unethical" or "You can't do that" - when their beliefs may be different than mine. Furthermore, many people ignorantly ASSUME that the laws must necessarily their particular set of "moral" or "ethical" beliefs.

Taking pictures of someone else's kids at the beach, and posting them on my Facebook page? Legally it's fine; ethically it's ...who knows?

^^^As a rule of thump, I'd say if they're bigger than you and know where you live, it's not ok...

RMH wrote in post #16481550
^^^As a rule of thump, I'd say if they're bigger than you and know where you live, it's not ok...

That brings in a third variable. There is legal, those things we as a society have defined as common enough such that we will apply them to all whether you personally believe it or not.

Then there is moral, those things that you personally believe to be right.

Then there is smart, those things that might get you pummeled even though it is legal such as taking pics of someones a$$ at the beach as she is walking by with her string bikini arm in arm with her gorilla boyfriend.

You post that somewhat in jest, but I think there was a thread about that not too long ago, actually. A guy was taking pics at the beach, some guys got suspicious and mad, and roughed up the photographer and his gear.

palad1n wrote in post #16478316
Hi,
not that long ago, we had pretty harsh discussion at work about taking street photos of unknown people around us. Lots of people doesn´t like being photographed and one day finding themselves on flickr or FB.

Here is my fresh example of publicly taken photo if you want to be perfectly street legal

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kf095/110412631​05/

hollis_f wrote in post #16480740
Is this a sticky somewhere on PotN?

This topic comes up quite often and it normally takes a load of posts spouting misinformation before the truth arrives.

But then, that's true of many topics on POTN.