Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 28 Aug 2014 (Thursday) 10:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

mom wants a picture I took

 
someone0
Senior Member
436 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2014
     
Aug 29, 2014 18:13 |  #31

I thought in the UK, you have no right to privacy because you would likely be recorded via CCTV, but as a photographer you also being harrassed for trying to shoot in public street.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
1000WordsPhotography
Senior Member
515 posts
Likes: 128
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 29, 2014 18:40 |  #32

delta0014 wrote in post #17124807 (external link)
What would you have to gain from keeping 1 photo up that no one is going to buy? Ego?
From the photographers point of view I don't understand why someone would fight it unless there just doing it from an ego point of view. You have nothing to gain. If one photograph would make that much of a difference in your portfolio - you have far greater problems. Anyone can easily post 20 bad reviews on every site your business is on, causing you to lose business. Or if they really wanted to they could file a lawsuit. Doesn't even matter if you think copyright laws would let you win the case, it's not worth the fight for one picture.

This is not me saying that I would personally do this if someone took a picture of my kid in public. It would be a rare situation, like my child's picture being used to raise money for a political or other cause that I didn't like.
I'm arguing this from the photographers point of view and wondering what you think you'd gain by not removing one picture.

For me it's not an ego thing. I just refuse to be bullied. If they left bad reviews I'd get them addressed, they never hired me so most sites won't let them review me. And I do a relatively good job of monitoring my businesses online reputation so I'd see it happening and address it.

If a parent or anyone for that matter asks me politely to remove a picture I usually have. If they were to tell me I had to, I'm probably not going to. If they were to threaten me, or try to blackmail me into giving them free pictures, well then I'm probably setting aside money in my will to set up a site in my name and have that picture on it forever. It's as simple as I refuse to be bullied.


Twitter: @1kWordsPhotog
Instagram: @1000WordsPhotographer
Facebook: Here (external link)
Portfolio: Here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 29, 2014 19:50 |  #33

someone0 wrote in post #17125286 (external link)
I thought in the UK, you have no right to privacy because you would likely be recorded via CCTV, but as a photographer you also being harrassed for trying to shoot in public street.

There is no right to privacy, whilst in a public place. That is much the same throughout the world. Yes, our town / city centres do have a quite high concentration of CCTV, but it is hardly an unknown feature in towns / cities anywhere in the developed world.

As for photographers being harassed for trying to shoot in a public street, I haven't come across it and I shoot in the street a lot. I also know a LOT of other keen photographers and have never heard of any of them being harrassed either. Sure there were a number of well publicised incidents a few years ago, when new anti-terror legfislation came out and a few overzealous cops (or more usually a PCSO, a part time volunteer cop) who didn't understand the new laws properly. However, the Home Office clarified the situation, and sent instructions out to all police forces that photography was not illegal and those engaging in it should not be targetted. Whilst there will always be an odd bad cop, as in any country, that does not mean that we are harassed as a matter of course. Even at the height of the problem, there might have seemed to be a big problem, with several cases reported every month, but that was not significant amongst the hundreds of thousands of photographers who weren't harassed.

I have been approached by cops on occasion when doing photography, generally when some member of the public reports me for "suspicious activity". On each occasion a quick friendly chat (a couple of minutes usually) was followed by them apologising for interrupting me and then going away. A couple of times the chat was longer, but that was because they were interested in photography, and we just got chatting. I never felt harassed in any way.

Again, as in most countries there are a few jumped up jobsworth security guards who try and chase photographers away from the building they are in charge of, but they have no power to harass unless you are on private property, and all they can do then is ask you to leave.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Supersteve911
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
613 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2010
Location: MN
     
Sep 01, 2014 21:41 |  #34

Update:
I received an email from the Renaissance Faire Office which stated I cannot sell any photo I take on their grounds without approval from them first. So I messaged the gal on FB and asked for her email address so I could send he the photo. It would have been nice to make a little money for my efforts but well not worth getting in trouble over it.


5D III | 24-105 | 85 1.8 | 70-200 II 2.8 | 2 430 EX II's | 580 EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aquaforester
Senior Member
886 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 328
Joined Nov 2011
     
Sep 02, 2014 07:51 |  #35

Supersteve911 wrote in post #17130658 (external link)
Update:
I received an email from the Renaissance Faire Office which stated I cannot sell any photo I take on their grounds without approval from them first. So I messaged the gal on FB and asked for her email address so I could send he the photo. It would have been nice to make a little money for my efforts but well not worth getting in trouble over it.

So how does that work. If your not physically on there 'ground' but take a picture of the fair from a distance away is that O.K. to sell?


Flickr (external link)

Current Gear
Canon 60D, 10-18, 24 Pancake, 60 macro, 70-200 F4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
someone0
Senior Member
436 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 02, 2014 12:39 |  #36

aquaforester wrote in post #17131114 (external link)
So how does that work. If your not physically on there 'ground' but take a picture of the fair from a distance away is that O.K. to sell?

Noy a lawyer, but that depend on the photo. You could also be dealing with the right of pulicity law if it contain recognizable face/feature. There could also be copyright onthe architectural, in which case, selling picture of such building/landscape could be violating their copyright.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Joe ­ Pye
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Sep 02, 2014 13:16 |  #37

I think the internet has changed some things.
I wouldn't hesitate to take a picture of a child in a public place.
However, I would hesitate to post that picture online without consent.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
beano
Goldmember
Avatar
4,168 posts
Likes: 7
Joined May 2006
Location: Berkshire. UK
     
Sep 02, 2014 17:48 |  #38

Joe Pye wrote in post #17131642 (external link)
I think the internet has changed some things.
I wouldn't hesitate to take a picture of a child in a public place.
However, I would hesitate to post that picture online without consent.

What would be your reason for taking the shot in the first place, if not to display it!?! I must admit, I avoid taking pictures of kids without permission, as it can potentially be too much grief.


Scott

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Sep 02, 2014 18:25 |  #39

someone0 wrote in post #17131582 (external link)
Noy a lawyer, but that depend on the photo. You could also be dealing with the right of pulicity law if it contain recognizable face/feature. There could also be copyright onthe architectural, in which case, selling picture of such building/landscape could be violating their copyright.

Except in the US there isnt a "right of publicity" law. There is only the ability to control the use of your image in commercial use, this was certainly not commercial use. Second, as far as I can tell, no one has ever enforced the need for a property release. I imagine that in most cases it would be pretty straight forward to get your photography classified as a derivative work as well.

Interesting that the fair enforced their photography clause. I always check for one when paying for a ticket to anything.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,047 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 137
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Sep 02, 2014 18:56 |  #40

delta0014 wrote in post #17124807 (external link)
Or if they really wanted to they could file a lawsuit. Doesn't even matter if you think copyright laws would let you win the case, it's not worth the fight for one picture.

An awful lot of people, have lost an awful lot of money when a court case ruling has gone against them, and the defendants costs have been awarded against them too.
:D


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
someone0
Senior Member
436 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 02, 2014 20:16 |  #41

I don't know about other state but there is certainly that law in California.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Sep 02, 2014 23:53 |  #42

someone0 wrote in post #17132354 (external link)
I don't know about other state but there is certainly that law in California.

http://www.dmlp.org …ornia-right-publicity-law (external link)

The statutory portion of California's "right of publicity" law seems to only apply to commercial use, and is thus similar to many other state laws. This statute doesn't apply here.

The DMLP also addresses a common law right, however the four step test seems to imply that there must be injury to the person who's image is used. I doubt that this would apply in this scenario. I can't find an instance when the use wasn't at least semi-commercial or the person was a celebrity.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
someone0
Senior Member
436 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 03, 2014 00:41 |  #43

MattPharmD wrote in post #17132694 (external link)
The statutory portion of California's "right of publicity" law seems to only apply to commercial use, and is thus similar to many other state laws. This statute doesn't apply here.

Are you saying selling photos don't count as commercial use? How exactly do you read that it doesn't apply to selling photo?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Sep 03, 2014 06:15 |  #44

someone0 wrote in post #17132725 (external link)
Are you saying selling photos don't count as commercial use? How exactly do you read that it doesn't apply to selling photo?

Commercial use is usually a specific term that refers to advertising or association with a product or service. Fine Art, for example, does not count as commercial use even if of people without their permission. I could take a photo of you on the street, make a 60x40 one time print, and sell it for $100,000 all without your permission. While this particular case is unlikely to qualify as fine art, portraits (candids) included do not usually qualify as commercial use unless the photographer is using the photo to advertise their business. As previously stated, this is how many junior sports photographers make a living. They show up at events, take lots of pictures of everyone's kids, and then hand out cards for their website or take orders on site.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
justingrainge
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
12 posts
Joined Jun 2013
Location: London
     
Sep 03, 2014 09:29 |  #45

whiteflyer wrote in post #17123346 (external link)
I'll be in that group then :)
To be honest for a photography forum the first two replies beggar belief, if photographers think it's wrong to take photos in public how the hell will we educate the general population that not everyone with a camera is some sort of weird pervert.

This!!!


Portrait / Commercial / Wedding / Barmitzvah Photography
http://graingephotogra​phy.com/ (external link)
5d3 - ef20-35mm f3.5, ef24-70mm f2.8L, ef70-200mm f2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,751 views & 0 likes for this thread
mom wants a picture I took
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dneitz
882 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.