Boston POTN Meet (2)

Mistabernie is correct. In most cases, you are within your rights to photograph private property while physically standing on public property. Under no circumstances should you trespass on the property to take the shot.

In some cases, it can be advisable to obtain a property release if you decide to sell the photograph. Attorneys may disagree with this. Carolyn Wright's opinion, last time I checked, is that property releases are not necessary in many if not all cases and photographers create their artform and stand up for their rights. I'm a licensed attorney. However, it is my opinion that the cost of fighting for your "rights" in this area of unsettled law - although could be a romantic and noble pursuit - outweighs most people's interest in the craft of photography.

Mistabernie wrote in post #15674713
I'm not a lawyer, but essentially, as long as you're not circumventing anything to get the picture (climbing a fence, standing on an object to look past something), anything you take that can be seen via public passage is fair game. You absolutely own copyright to the image as you created it lawfully, and buildings, etc visible from public passages are considered public domain.

That said, if you got approached about getting it into something like a 'Farmhouses of New England' calendar/book/etc and were going to get paid, I think it's absolutely the right thing to do to go back and negotiate a fee for the owner of the property.

Bernie has got it.... the only exceptions are some military installations that are visible from public property...and "peeping tom" type stuff.

Not always black and white, though. Look at Yasmine Chatila's work, "Stolen Moments." She's exhibited her peeping tom photograph's in NY galleries. I'm not aware of any rights of action against her. Although, I can see some valid cases against her regardless of whether she published only digitally obscured or obstructed faces. I can also think of likely defenses - she took these photos on public property, etc.

What, the people of Potn on the Boston thread not gaining access to rooftops etc, and taking regular shots from the public areas?

what has the world come to?

Nathan wrote in post #15674892
Not always black and white, though. Look at Yasmine Chatila's work, "Stolen Moments." She's exhibited her peeping tom photograph's in NY galleries. I'm not aware of any rights of action against her. Although, I can see some valid cases against her regardless of whether she published only digitally obscured or obstructed faces. I can also think of likely defenses - she took these photos on public property, etc.

Yep. That's the first thing that came to mind.

so long as you are on public property, you are well within your rights to take photos of anything visible to you.

anything seems like a very broad term...but the only situation i could see getting in trouble for would be taking distasteful photos of a nude child and reproducing them.

a no tresspassing sign is a physical barrier. so crossing a no tresspassing sign without permission will get you and your photos in trouble. taking pictures of buildings, landmarks...etc is completely legal from public property, as well as from private property unless expressly forbidden by the property owners.

videotaping isnt much different..and the supreme court of the US has recently ruled that you dont need consent to audio record in public. despite cops constantly arresting people under the guise of the wiretapping law, cops, as well as citizens, lose a significant portion of their right to privacy for being in a public place.

the images you take, YOU own.

t3ichef wrote in post #15675059
anything seems like a very broad term...but the only situation i could see getting in trouble for would be taking distasteful photos of a nude child and reproducing them.

...

the images you take, YOU own.

One of the issues to test for is whether a photograph violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. Just ask yourself that question, rather than try to think of specific circumstances that you can't take a photo.

Being able to take a photograph legally and copyright are different. Taking a photo legally does not give you the absolute right to publish or sell the images. Privacy issues also come into play, here. It's okay to photography people walking in a public park, but you still need permission to sell their photographs for use in a brochure.

then that all boils down to common sense....

take a photo with something dodgy in the background, save the photo for a blackmail opportunity in the future. Otherwise, you don't go plastering it all over the web.

Well, the copyright doesn't really change - if you can legally take the photo, you legally own the photo. It's how you use the photo that's the big question -- for example, if you are out doing street photography and you catch a glimpse of a model-esque woman with a Prada bag and Prada offers to buy the image off of you, you're SOL unless A) the woman is not identifiable, or B) You have a model release from said woman.

Was doing some magazine work yesterday at a Civil War reenactment type thing...

Right - it's use that's a big question, if Mrs. 007 wants to sell the photograph. Copyright ownership doesn't always belong to the photographer who legally took the photo - e.g. work for hire or taken in the course of employment. Neither of those seem to apply here, so those are not issues.

If she sold this image then she might be liable for, as one possible example, invasion of privacy if the property owner can establish a strong case why commercial use of the image violated his privacy rights.

Law is a tricky area and even though it may seem black and white, attorneys can be pretty crafty in putting together arguments to benefit their clients.

I'm not one to blanketly say someone can do this or that... it ALWAYS depends on the circumstances. Most circumstances are covered by general rules of thumb, but there are plenty of grey areas for those who are looking.

That's the thing, if he doesn't erect something to keep his property 'private' then he has no real recourse. Buildings/dwellings visible in public view (unless strictly indicated by the owner of the building, i.e. no trespassing / no photography signs or having informed, either personally or as an agent of the owner/manager of the building) are public domain. Legally, one DOES have the right to sell images taken from public places.

I had some good information on this earlier and I lost it. Oh.. actually, I think this is it --

http://en.wikisource.o​rg …_17/Chapter_1/S​ection_120

nice, scott. Looks like the old manse house in concord, in the background but i am prob wrong.

editorial use requires no model release. you can publish any photo you take of anyone, but you cannot use that photo to sell something. for instance, you take a picture of a beautiful woman on the street and publish it in a book called "the beautiful people of boston". that would be totally legal from what i understand. putting that photo on a billboard advertising the benefits of a particular spa treatment...etc...that​s a different story.

reasonable expectation of privacy...you can peep into peoples windows from the street, and although its legal to take a photo of your neighbors house from the street, taking pictures of people in their house violates their expectation of privacy. same with a public bathroom, lockerroom...etc.

expectation of privacy is diminished on private property where the public have access. supermarkets, zuccotti park for instance. the property owners can still restrict photography in their parameters though.

Harm wrote in post #15675525
nice, scott. Looks like the old manse house in concord, in the background but i am prob wrong.

Wrong indeed - this is in Milton on Adams St.