mom wants a picture I took

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.

delta0014 wrote in post #17124807
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.

someone0 wrote in post #17125286
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.

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.

Supersteve911 wrote in post #17130658
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?

aquaforester wrote in post #17131114
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.

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.

Joe Pye wrote in post #17131642
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.

someone0 wrote in post #17131582
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.

delta0014 wrote in post #17124807
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.

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

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

http://www.dmlp.org …ornia-right-publicity-law

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.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17132694
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?

someone0 wrote in post #17132725
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.

whiteflyer wrote in post #17123346
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!!!