street photography & humour

..and a site with words and pictures..http://www.4020.net/un​posed/

jbimages wrote in post #3718344
..and a site with words and pictures..http://www.4020.net/un​posed/

Interesting portraits there. Thanks for sharing.

KAC

jbimages wrote in post #3718344
..and a site with words and pictures..http://www.4020.net/un​posed/

Thanks John,

a good tipp!

Regards
Elke

yes that last link is fantastic, ya gotta have grit to photograph like that.

great shots. I love that big bear

Hello Michael,

I just visited your website: what a cool moon shot!

http://www.kuriger.net …/nature/moon-014.jpg.html

Regards
Elke

elja wrote in post #3530339
Hello community,

my name is Elke and I love street photography. I like photos with a special kind of humour and pictures of the ordinary everyday life.
I good example for that is the website of a German photographer:

http://www.siegfriedbe​cker.com

I hope you like that site as much as I do.

All the best (and happy shooting)
Elke

P.S.: please be patient with my (school) English!

No effects, just real life! Thanks for the tipp.

Ludi

For the friends of street photography:

http://www.stphoto.eu/

A collection of selected street photography links!

Ludi

AdamC wrote in post #3572178
shooting people who are in public places is quite legal

yes.

AdamC wrote in post #3572178
and gives you the right to use the resulting photos in almost any way you please.

No.


It's quite incorrect to think so. You are within your legal rights to take a picture that has a recognizable person in it so long as you are on public property BUT the image cannot be used commercially or sold without a release. The only gray area is editorial use-so if you're a newspaper photographer and you take a picture of some people playing catch in a park that could run in the newspaper, but you couldn't turn around and sell prints of that on your website or use it commercially (ie. stock or selling to ad agencies etc).

It's SO important that we as photographers know our rights, especially in these times where more and more people challenge them on a regular basis. There is a lot of false information out there. If in doubt, talk to your lawyer.

Regards

GMosher wrote in post #4462623
yes.


No.


.... The only gray area is editorial use-so if you're a newspaper photographer and you take a picture of some people playing catch in a park that could run in the newspaper, but you couldn't turn around and sell prints of that on your website or use it commercially (ie. stock or selling to ad agencies etc).

It's SO important that we as photographers know our rights, especially in these times where more and more people challenge them on a regular basis. There is a lot of false information out there. If in doubt, talk to your lawyer.

Regards

This may vary country to country so its wise to check the laws in your country first.

In Australia "commercial use" does not mean the sale of a picture, it means the use of a person's likeness to endorse some product or service.
Newspapers here regularly sell copies of the images they have published.
Fairfax photos stipulates on its website that prints purchased are for personal home display only. That would be their bum covering exercise as they wouldn't have releases for all the people in their photos.

This may vary country to country so its wise to check the laws in your country first.

Absolutely! Germany has the most strictly laws in that point. The French laws are more tolerant for street photographers, cause the tradition of that kind of photography. (Henry Cartier-Bresson for example).

Ludi

@ the OP

If you're into the style of the guy posted above, you might like the work of Matt Stuart
http://lvps212-241-196-151.vps.webfusion.co.u​k/MattStuart/image/165​3

Have fun exploring
http://www.in-public.com/

and for the Aussies
http://www.oculi.com.a​u/

Personally a big fan of Trent Parke and James Brickwood

The in-public site is well known, but this one is (for me) a genuine discovery. Thanks for sharing.

and for the Aussies
http://www.oculi.com.a​u/

Ludi

the_incubus wrote in post #3534025
I dont believe you need to. They are on public grounds. But, im not sure. It could be that you are allowed to photograph them when they are in public but not allowed to publish them with out consent. Im not sure.

Photographs sold or published as Art= no release
Photographs used to promote or sell a product or service = need a release.


Mike

In Feb 2006 in the case of Nussenzweig v DiCorcia
The New York Supreme court ruled on the side of the photographer Philip-Lorca DiCorcia after he had sold 10 prints of Mr. Emo Nussenzweig for between $20, 000 to 30,000 dollars each and used photograph in a book without a signed release from Mr. Nussenzweig.

http://heim.ifi.uio.no …w/streetphoto1_​us_lr.html

A google search of Nussenzweig vs DiCorcia will give additional background information on the case.

Mike