Asking people for permission to take photos of them

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.

Especially with TELE lenses, it´s pretty simple to take picture of person face with great details without notice.

My question is : Do you ask them everytime for their permission to put it on flickr, etc.. ?
I know it should have to (it´s even against the law here in Czech Republic besides the moral codex), that´s why i don´t post photos of random people on flickr or FB (excluding actors, athletes, etc..), but i really curious what about you guys from different countries.

Thanks for your answers!


PS: I apologize for my grammar (especially about "permition" in topic name)

Your out in public, your fair game for all non-commercial uses.

gjl711 wrote in post #16478343
Your out in public, your fair game for all non-commercial uses.

My non-lawyer understanding is that the identifiable(*) people in the picture have a right to restrict publishing of their photos, regardless of whether it is commercial or not.


(*) shortcut for more complex definition

i have heard that if that person covers most of the frame, you need his/her permission to public the photo.

Where matters. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, that Americans have NO expectation of privacy when in public places. As long as there is no commercial gain from the photograph, you don't need permission from anyone to shoot in public places.

Legaleeze out of the way, it would be very nice to ask permission if the subject is primary in the photo. I don't see the father of a 16 year-old girl passively allowing you to snap photos of his daughter bending over a drinking fountain, legal or not. Common sense can go a long way here.

uOpt wrote in post #16478389
My non-lawyer understanding is that the identifiable(*) people in the picture have a right to restrict publishing of their photos, regardless of whether it is commercial or not.


(*) shortcut for more complex definition

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.

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.

bingo.

there was even a recent case in NY where an "artist" took photos from his apartment across the street through the window of another apartment and published the photos as art. IE, in a gallery.

the artist won.

commercial use (promoting a product) requires a model release virtually every time. Editorial use does not require a release virtually every time. There are exceptions to every rule.

edit: wow, the above legal case was still in my browser history. That is almost more creepy than getting your pic taken by a stranger.

http://www.nydailynews​.com …t-judge-article-1.1421959

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.

Yes, but there is still a difference between taking the picture and publishing it. I haven't seen "commercial" or not play a big role in the publishing part of that.

I have no intention of telling people what's legal or not other than to encourage taking the difference between the two into account.

I don't ask people for permission on the street unless I want a portrait, its that simple.

uOpt wrote in post #16478810
Yes, but there is still a difference between taking the picture and publishing it. I haven't seen "commercial" or not play a big role in the publishing part of that.

Publishing is generally considered commercial use. Posting to facebook, POTN, flickr and such is not really publishing unless you are posting the image for sale and even then it's gray. As the NY case shows, if your posting as an artistic expression, even though the images are for sale, it can be allowed.

From recent cases, editorial or artistic use you do not need a model release agreement but if you plan on making money selling the image for commercial (advertizing, brochures, magazine) and such, get the model to sign a release contract.

iamascientist wrote in post #16478860
I don't ask people for permission on the street unless I want a portrait, its that simple.

This is the way I work to. I sometimes ask if I see someone interesting and want a portrait but if I'm going for the moment it's just that and if I ask the moment is over. My advice to the OP is put away the tele put on a normal or wide and get in close.

In the UK (and I suspect most other places) the law is about misreprsenting someone;

Ie you can take an image of them and sell it as an image without their knowlage or permission.

Newspapers do this all the time -- think about it -- all paparazi would be instantly out of business if all the a-list stars caught sunbathing topless on a beach (or even just attending a film opening or whatever) needed to give permission before a newspaper put them on the front page, and the newpaper is definately selling these images.

What you can't do is use that image to advertise something without a model release, as that implies they like what your using them to advertise, which they may not.

RMH has hit the nail on the head. (At least in the US, UK and much or Europe) You can take a photo of someone without their permission, you can publish it for editorial purposes in a newspaper or sell it as a print or in a photo book. The only thing that requires a model release/permission is using the image for advertising/promotion of a company/product/servic​e or cause.

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.

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.

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