CHAT Thread: SMWYG Return of the Photographer

I just bought a NEC PA241W and calibrated it to 5500. The white is a little warmer than 6500. Replaced a decent Gateway (compared to most laptop displays).

Happy New Year's all!

I know I'm showing my ignorance and newbieness here, but...what the heck does SMWYG mean, anyway?

gkuenning wrote in post #11556914
I know I'm showing my ignorance and newbieness here, but...what the heck does SMWYG mean, anyway?

Show Me What You Got

jetcode wrote in post #11508600
Ed, I have a question for you, and well any other photographer who shoots people. In the Acropolis image I take it the people in this photograph have no idea they are being included in your art. Does this represent an issue of privacy? For some reason I have an aversion to shooting people without permission. I am trying to understand if this is a real rights violation or a mental block.

geno.ca wrote in post #11508893
Ed's shot would be an interesting court case. Theoretically, they are not in a public place so I'd assume a release would be required.

It depends on where the shot was taken.

Note: IANAL, and the following should not be construed as legal advice.

If it was taken in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or (I think) New Zealand, there is no problem with using the picture in an artistic book or calendar, a gallery display (including selling it), or a news article. All of these are considered "editorial" usages and don't require a model release. The people in the picture are in a public place, next to an uncovered window, and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. A model release would be needed only if the picture were used commercially, such as advertising the restaurant. (Note that simply selling the image isn't "commercial use" in this sense.)

I believe that the rules for Canada are similar, but I don't know that for a fact.

In France and Germany, my understanding is that it is illegal to even take the photo, regardless of what you do with it afterwards. However, there's an exception for incidental captures, so that if Ed's photo were a crop from a larger shot of the entire street, it would have been legal to take it, but possibly not to publish the crop. Again, IANAL in any country.

My general impression is that other non-English-speaking countries generally tend toward the French/German theory that you have privacy even when you're wandering around in public. Since learning about these rules, I've gotten much more cautious when I'm in foreign lands. But I still shoot freely in English-speaking lands.

As to the original question about ethics, I try to follow a rule of not presenting people in an unflattering light. Beyond that, I think it's fair game.

EDIT: Google "Legal Rights for Photographers" for an extended discussion by a lawyer.

This week's winners here: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11561332&po​stcount=74