Total new-bee question?

and.............. laws in america are ambiguous enough to give lawyers tons of business. here we have the extreme case, Richard Prince:

http://www.diyphotogra​phy.net …tagram-photos-for-100000/
(url just randomly chosen.... but plenty out there of him)

in this case not only is he selling pictures of people without their permission, he also calling other people's copyrighted pictures and words his own, AND using a business' copyrighted material too!, all in one shot. i'm not sure on this case, but in previous examples like when he put circles on people, he got sued and actually won.

Wilt wrote in post #17774304
Article quality is not disputed, I feel it is a long way of saying simply,

"If the photo of a person is not ultimately to be used commercially i.e. in the promotion of a service or product, or promotion of the agency of said service/product, you do not need a release".

I will admit some uncertainty about my above summary in this situation:

1. Person B takes a photo of Person C
   
2. Person B makes a print for display in Agency A's gallery, for sale as A Piece of Art by Person B
   
3. If Agency A prints a brochure to promote Event E as 'Works of art by various artists, such as Person B, Person X, etc. at Gallery G' all to be sold by Agency A at Event E (in their gallery)
   

...does Person B need a release from Person C, because Agency A is promoting their business of selling art on commission?!

It would seem the article deals with that uncertainty in the statement:

" disputes about whether a given publication of a photo of someone could be construed in such a way, but the dispute gets closer into the safety zone when that publication is a form of artistic expression. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects "artistic exhibitions" (and publications) as a form of free speech, so consent from anyone else—by definition—is never required. Money or profit has nothing to do with whether a work is published or "depicted in an artistic manner."

you have definitely hit on a grey area of the law.

I have argued before that it often depends on who is pictured, and how badly they want to protect their image. More specifically are they famous and would such use affect their "right of publicity" in a way that it would not if it were just some Joe Schmoe on the street.

the number of dollars an individual can throw at a lawsuit is of course another big factor.

...photography is supposed to be fun, to a certain extent! take photos of people if you like, if confronted, explain what you're doing and be done with it! if the subject is uncomfortable or demands to have the photo deleted, just delete it and move on!


I was walking around times square with a video camera and steadicam, a woman walked up to me and said that I'm doing something illegal, I should stop recording as the people around me are unaware of being recorded!

I laughed at her, I explained that I live in new york and was recording because my parents want to see times square in the winter! she said it's illegal, I pointed at the nypd and told her to go ahead and call them over so I could report her for harassing me!


it's a camera, not a weapon! people are so concerned about privacy but post every move they make on social media! i could careless if you're going on vacation or the type of coffee you must drink in the morning to get your day started!

Xyclopx wrote in post #17773715
just want to clarify a few things, and point out possible errors:

why? ain't nothing wrong with it. sure, others may violently disagree, but should you always let bad opinions prevail? stand up for what is right. however, in this instance i am unclear whether children represent an exception to the rule--some info implies you always need a model realease for children, but i could have read that wrong, and in that case it might mean the model release for children is different than for adults, but not necessarily needed. anyway, you'll have to do your homework on what is required for kids.

It may not be a legal question but a moral one. There are "laws' that are higher than Man's Laws! What if your innocent picture was used to abduct or threaten or bully or some other ugly thing to a child. And why in the world do you want a picture of somebody else's kid? There is name for that individual. Don't make it yours.

Even in private places like a Major League ball game, it isn't illegal to take the photos. It is trespassing. Even if it was someone's home, taking the photo is not the illegal act. The homeowner can simply say, don't take pictures here or else you can leave. That is trespassing.

Another thing to remember people can sue you for anything. It doesn't have to be an illegal act. In England loser's pay for the court costs but in the US no such law. People think about it. In the US, that is why there are so many cases.

Don't take photos of other peoples kids unless asked to do so. But you do as you wish!

ebiggs wrote in post #17777411
It may not be a legal question but a moral one. There are "laws' that are higher than Man's Laws! What if your innocent picture was used to abduct or threaten or bully or some other ugly thing to a child. And why in the world do you want a picture of somebody else's kid? There is name for that individual. Don't make it yours.

ebiggs, that's exactly my point.... i'm talking about the moral issue, except that i hold the complete opposite viewpoint from you. to me it's morally wrong to tell photographers not to take pictures of your kids. to me pictures of kids are no different than pictures of adults. i am sure the percentage of pictures used for nefarious purposes is astronomically low--probably almost none of them as a percentage of all that are taken. this fear of pictures of your kids being used to harm them is perpetuated by this sort of thinking. it is your right to take the pictures--defend your rights.

tell me, do you think it's wrong for men to take pictures of women walking about on the street? i am sure the chances of those pictures being viewed sexually is a zillion times more probable than pictures of kids. should we ban that then?

not exactly true. in america the court can order the loser to pay lawyer costs. however, i talked this over with a lawyer friend, and it seems it's kinda a case-by-case basic and somewhat subjective. apparently it's up to the judge to award such fees, and it depends on how justified the case was.

my friend explained the reason they make it subjective like this is to not discourage legitimate lawsuits, otherwise people would be too scared to sue even if they were wronged, for fear that if they lose against say a big corporation, that they would lose too much.

"... do you think it's wrong for men to take pictures of women walking about on the street?"

No I don't if they are adults.

They say 9 out of 10 child predators start out innocently. I have no tolerance for this. It is not a matter of rights.
If you tried to shoot children on the playground at any of our local elementary schools, I guarantee you would be talking to a policeman.

"i talked this over with a lawyer friend, and it seems it's kinda a case-by-case basic and somewhat subjective."

Maybe but that is not the way it is around here. The attorney fee's and filing fee's, etc, are on the plaintiff. The defendant still has to defend himself on his dime.

There obvious differing view points here. It may be legal but it is morally wrong. Why do you feel the need to capture other people's kids in pictures? That alone is not right.

I really hate these threads. After a couple of posts that explain the photographers right under nthe law then it gets polluted with opinions in what should or shouldn't be shot. More often than not somebody pulls out the predator card and things go sideways. ..

ebiggs wrote in post #17777567
Why do you feel the need to capture other people's kids in pictures? That alone is not right.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17777587
I really hate these threads. After a couple of posts that explain the photographers right under nthe law then it gets polluted with opinions in what should or shouldn't be shot. More often than not somebody pulls out the predator card and things go sideways. ..

ebiggs, i can't directly link the photos here per forum rules, but here's a link. it's not the only one, just one of the first on a google search. the photographer is bresson--one of the most famous photographers ever to have lived:

http://reelfoto.blogsp​ot.com …bresson-looking-back.html

in particular, pay attention to the pic with the kid holding bottles, but there's others with kids there too. that picture with the bottles is very famous, and i guarantee you he did not ask for permission. i'll let that be my statement to you.

so, just to circle back to your rights...... your right is to take pictures like these.

gonzo, sorry, i'll bow out now.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17777587
I really hate these threads.

Why do you read them, then? We simply have two differing points of view.

I read them to try to tamp down the ignorance of bad advice and fear mongering that usually follows. Just like in this thread. There is bad advice about the need for a release and there is now the silly suggestion that one can never photograph a candid shots of a child in public.

So I could take a picture of an "adult" at age 18 but if he was 17 a few days ago now I shouldnt be taking pictures of him? I get what you are saying Ebiggs, I wouldnt necessarily want to go to a playground and start shooting, or I'll have some explaining to do to the parents. But saying its wrong to take shots of children is wrong.

It is sad that the innocence of youth has fallen victim to both a real (and terrible) practice of human trafficing, and opportunists generally preying upon the innocent (like the preying upon the adult with their head up their ..., while they walk down the street with their noses in their smartphones, and so phone thieves actively prey upon them). The fact that fear and paranoia about the prevelance of such preying has driven folks to be overly protective even when it is not always a valid concern (apart from the need for watchful oversight, which adults have always had for children, to keep them from harm's way) is a sad commentary on what the world has become. The innocence of the 1950's vs the crime and paranoia of the 2000's is truly sad.

oscardog wrote in post #17777745
So I could take a picture of an "adult" at age 18 but if he was 17 a few days ago now I shouldnt be taking pictures of him? I get what you are saying Ebiggs, I wouldnt necessarily want to go to a playground and start shooting, or I'll have some explaining to do to the parents. But saying its wrong to take shots of children is wrong.

You are free to do whatever you like.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17777686
I read them to try to tamp down the ignorance of bad advice and fear mongering that usually follows. Just like in this thread.

It is comforting to know there are great individuals that make the sacrifice and act as internet police to keep us straight.
Keep up the good work.

ebiggs wrote in post #17780872
It is comforting to know there are great individuals that make the sacrifice and act as internet police to keep us straight.
Keep up the good work.

Why is it that whenever someone tries to offer an objective and factual opinion, someone else comes along and berates them with the "police" label? It's offensive to reasonable minds and probably more than a few genuine police professionals.