What are my rights not to be photographed

nicksan wrote in post #10237029
These were my brother's kids. Nothing was contracted. Trust me, I would know since this is my brother we are talking about. We were just at a random park letting the kids play a little. This guy, with a DSLR walks up to the area and starts composing a shot with one of my nephews. That's when I stepped in.

Yeah, creepy. But that's just my opinion, and much like yours, probably doesn't amount to much.

There is no right and wrong here. He wasn't doing anything illegal. Doesn't mean I have to like it and when I told my brother what happened, he thanked me. So in my mind, I did the right thing. Family comes before some camera nerd in the park.

sorry, I misread. I was thinking it was at a little league game or something. Not really sure where I got that from now that I read it again.

While doing some research I found this site. The tutorials are quite interesting and very pertinent to this discussion. My POTN experience tells me that most won't both reading anything in the link but here is a link to the releases tutorial:

http://asmp.org …y-and-model-releases.html

jhuckelberry wrote in post #10236984
My opinion you were in the wrong here. We don't know all of the story obviously, but he could have been contracted to get these shots but your first reaction, even as a photographer, is that he is creepy and wrong.

Again, just my opinion, which doesn't really amount to much.

Why is a photographer's right to get a picture more important than his right to stand where he wishes? I agree, the photographer has the right to take pictures, but there is nothing to prevent a person to use his or her body to block a shot. If the shot had been taken, the parent (or anyone else) does not have the right to demand that it be deleted. But there is nothing wrong with standing in front of a photographer trying to take pictures of your kid.

And nicksan is right.. someone taking pictures of kids is creepy. It is not illegal, but creepy.

tzalman wrote in post #10235699
If the photo, even though shot in a public place, portrayed you in a degrading way (caught you picking your nose) or was injurious to your reputation, you would have grounds for seeking a court order to prevent its publication/display. The judge would then have to weigh between the damage on one hand and freedom of the press and the public's need to know on the other.

This is an area where people need to be very careful and not make "High and Mighty" assumptions...

Carrying a camera does not automatically grant you magical "Press" powers and using it does not shield you from privacy laws vis a vis "Freedom of the Press." The "public" has absolutely no "need to know," or "right to know" anything about someone's street shots if the photographer is simply a GWC.

The GWC test is simple: If you get jacked up by law enforcement or get a supoena or summons handed to you over something you've shot, and you don't have the phone number of an Editor or Publisher who will go to the matt on your behalf, you're a GWC.

kauffman v36 wrote in post #10237048
as gjl711 stated, these dicsussions are great IMO but they almost always lead to political discussion which is a no no on this forum.

I think these discussions are great too. I think photographers should understand their rights. But I think readers here are too quick to label a discussion that talks about: rights, laws and constitutional law: "politics". This topic is not political, it is about rights and law. If people start suggesting that the laws be changed, that is different, that would be politics.

hairy_moth wrote in post #10237238
.. This topic is not political, it is about rights and law. If people start suggesting that the laws be changed, that is different, that would be politics.

There lies the slippery slope. The rights and laws are so murky as to make it nearly impossible to clearly define. Even when the law is clear, as it was recently when a guy was taking pics of 17 year old soccer players, if your male and shooting with a SLR, your assumed to be a terrorist or a pervert and can get in a boatload of trouble. All it takes is one parent calling the cops and suggesting your a pervert and your dead meat.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10237089
This is an area where people need to be very careful and not make "High and Mighty" assumptions...

Carrying a camera does not automatically grant you magical "Press" powers and using it does not shield you from privacy laws vis a vis "Freedom of the Press." The "public" has absolutely no "need to know," or "right to know" anything about someone's street shots if the photographer is simply a GWC.

The GWC test is simple: If you get jacked up by law enforcement or get a supoena or summons handed to you over something you've shot, and you don't have the phone number of an Editor or Publisher who will go to the matt on your behalf, you're a GWC.

I don't believe there are two sets of rules - one for "professional" photographers and one for the somewhat derogatory label "GWC". We are all guys/gals with a camera.

dlpasco wrote in post #10237425
I don't believe there are two sets of rules - one for "professional" photographers and one for the somewhat derogatory label "GWC". We are all guys/gals with a camera.

But I think Jay hits on a very important point. If your a GWC and someone takes a disliking to you, your screwed even if your totally within your rights. A typical GWC just doesn't have the resources to fight city hall. Street photography, event photography, even amateur sports photography is being threatened and we will soon loose our right to take those types of pictures. And here is where the POTN line gets fuzzy. Somewhere, someone will make a big enough stink about their kid getting photographed, and they will be connected enough so that the laws are changes and all photographers will be left with is taking pictures of birds, animals, and bugs.

dlpasco wrote in post #10237425
I don't believe there are two sets of rules - one for "professional" photographers and one for the somewhat derogatory label "GWC". We are all guys/gals with a camera.

You might be right that there shouldn't be, but I can assure you there is.

My next door neighbor is photographer for the NY Post (crime/legal), and he is allowed access to crime scenes that I can't even get close to. He has valid press credentials, and it's proof that he's not there to interfere with the investigation or isn't just some yahoo who wants to see the aftermath of a gang turf war up close.

There are times and situations in which a second set of rules is in order. These are few and far between, but they exist.

culturejam wrote in post #10237659
You might be right that there shouldn't be, but I can assure you there is.

My next door neighbor is photographer for the NY Post (crime/legal), and he is allowed access to crime scenes that I can't even get close to.

Right, a press pass can give you access to restricted space (e.g., sidelines of a sporting event). But the conversation was about photographers in public places. In public places, a GWC has the same rights as a pro.

gjl711 wrote in post #10237516
But I think Jay hits on a very important point. If your a GWC and someone takes a disliking to you, your screwed even if your totally within your rights. A typical GWC just doesn't have the resources to fight city hall. Street photography, event photography, even amateur sports photography is being threatened and we will soon loose our right to take those types of pictures. And here is where the POTN line gets fuzzy. Somewhere, someone will make a big enough stink about their kid getting photographed, and they will be connected enough so that the laws are changes and all photographers will be left with is taking pictures of birds, animals, and bugs.

True. However, read the tutorial link that I posted earlier. It is interesting. I found it a few days ago and was surprised by some of the content.

I also posted in another thread a few months ago that the concern about a GWC is misplaced. Cell phones, surveillance cameras, traffic cameras are becoming the norm. We are photographed several times a day and we don't even realize it. People should be more concerned about the hidden photographers.

Regarding the 'GWC' label - Da Vinci was most often commissioned and that made him a 'professional'. However, does that make many other famous artists 'guy with a brush'? Famous novelist a 'guy with a pen'? Sorry for the digression.

It dosent matter what the laws says it's all about how it is understood

as far as I have been able to understand
you can take photos if any one in public
you can not sell these images for anything comercial
you can sell them as art, this is how you can sell sports photos and such online without a model release

The European Union and the UK are tightening the rules on what is permitted in shooting images of random people. And the concern of parents is common here and there. I love shooting people living their lives and the kids in the neighborhood are part of it.

For instance, a pick-up ball game in a little square on the canary Islands, I got blasted by a mom for shooting pictures of the game, but I was fairly certain I caught the flack because two other tourists off cruise ships had been asking kids to pose for them a few moments earlier and word must have gotten to Mom about that. My shots all had the ball in action.

In Hyde Park, I wanted to shoot the memorial to Princess Di, but there were so many half-naked kids playing in the water I never raised my camera, nothing I could safely shoot. A short distance away there was the Peter Pan statue and it was virtually always covered by climbing kids. I got one shot with no faces visible and only after making sure that parents standing by were comfortable with me shooting.

In Holland I saw an older toddler playing with cars at the open air cafe at a museum. The floor was white tiles with lines of black tile and the kid was pretending the black tiles were streets. Cute image, but I had to explain to a father that I was only shooting it for the composition and that the picture wouldn't be used commercially.

Not many year before, when I was working for a paper, the editor could say, go get a picture of kids playing in the pond. Or, go find a snowball fight. Or , see if any kids are skipping school and jumping off the old bridge. Seasonal shots that everyone enjoyed and no one thought ill of. Those days are gone forever, I guess.

This is a good place to browse for photographers in the US: www.photoattorney.com

There is no difference in First Amendment rights between "the press" and any other citizen, and there are enough free speech advocacy groups to defend the rights of a citizen to publish as freely as the New York Times. In fact, the New York Times would even weigh in on the case.

chauncey wrote in post #10230896
We all are aware that if I'm in a public place I can be photographed and it is my assumption that the image of me cannot be used for commercial gain without a release.

Assuming all that is true, where can that image be used and shown and what recourse do I have, would they be published, with or without the photographer being compensated?

You don't have a "right not to be photographed." You have certain rights not to have your activities publicized, but that depends both on where you are and what you are doing, as well as why you're there and why you're doing it.