Richard Dakin
(K=12915) - Comment Date 3/14/2005
|
A very difficult question, especially when kids are involved. Make sure you have both model releases, and any credentials (or at least your business card) with you to present to your subjects. When children are involved I ALWAYS ask first. It sometimes helps to be shooting digital, because you can always delete the image on the spot if someone objects. Honestly because of the potential problems, I only shoot candid images of my friends and their children.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/14/2005
|
Thanks Richard not the answer I was hoping for but good advice. I thought there might be a magic formula. :-) Good idea about the digital and instant delete tho. Thanks again for taking the time to answer.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/14/2005
|
Oops another question. What are model releases??. I won't be selling them or anything its for my own collection. Not good enough to sell or offer. Would NEVER offer kids ones anyway too scared what some perv might be using them for. So I totally understand what a parent might be feeling.Do you think its a good idea to carry a "sample" of my photos?
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 3/14/2005
|
I am developing a strong dislike for paranoid societies. Very strong.
In countries which practice "presumed innocent until proved guilty", letting yourself be limited in your art because there might be 'bad people' out there kind of doesn't make sense. 'Bad people' will find ways of doing their bad things whether model releases exist or not.
This Saturday I consulted a lawyer and in my country at least, it seems that if you are shooting in public for documentary or artistic purposes without intentionally wanting to ridicule or hurt a specific person in the photograph, you don't have to feel restricted in selecting your subjects. The world has not gone completely crazy yet.
A word of advice: it is not necessary to 'steal' photos. Put on a big lens, put on a big flash unit (even if you don't actually use it), use a tripod if it's needed, and walk around openly so that everyone can see you are taking photographs. People will assume you're supposed to be doing whatever it is you're doing. Begin with public events, street shows, etc. where it's natural to see pro photojournalists documenting the event. You will be considered one of them.
If someone really, really doesn't want their photo taken, they will let you know. Use your common sense. If you see someone who's likely to shoot you if you shoot them, leave them alone. If you see situations in which you wouldn't want your photo taken, don't take the photo. In all other cases, don't be ashamed to take photos - it's a natural thing to do for a photographer.
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12915) - Comment Date 3/14/2005
|
Matej makes a good point, there are vast differences in how the law or for that matter the public in different countries view candid photography and especially photographing children. I think you need to find out how the law applies in your country.
Having a "very strong dislike for paranoid societies" won't do you much good in a court of law, if your homeland frowns upon this type of photography. It is sad that the world has come to this point, but it is a reality.
Please note that I am only talking about photographing individuals, not crowds or public events. If you are photographing individuals without their knowledge, it may be looked upon as an invasion of privacy. In Canada the rights of the individual to privacy are very strong, and no matter what your intent you might find yourself in trouble, if your subject chose to press the issue. This of course is unlikely to happen, as most people really just want to know what you are up to. In Canada however there is great sensitivity to photographing children.
As Matej suggests the way you present yourself is very important. Looking like a photographer as he describes will go a long way to help you gain acceptance.
No doubt Alison, you were looking for answers that were a little less complicated.
P.S. A model release is simply a form that is signed by the subject or his/her parents, giving you permission to use their image. It may not be necessary if you do not intend to publish the photos, but it does go a long way in re-assuring your subjects of your intentions.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/15/2005
|
Thank you Richard and Matej for your feedback. I know what you mean. I actually used the "stealing photos" heading to get you to read it. I guess it worked. Sorry. But yes good idea I am tho, just an amature who loves photgraphing no "professional" look or equipment. Valuable opinions expressed thank you.
|
|
|
|
cessy karina
(K=14205) - Comment Date 3/15/2005
|
Dear Alison,
I am learning also and like to try to photograph almost anything. your question is very interest me. sometimes I like photograph people on the street, and I like to take photograph of children too.
Especially about the children, in some country I don't think there is difficulty in taking pictures of people, but is some western countries that there might be some paranoia, best is to ask first the parents whether we can take photo of their children. just introduce properly and say that you are only amateur. I find many parents are proud if somebody took picture of their children, so they will let you :)
so good luck,
cessy
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 3/15/2005
|
Pretty bad when we have to consult lawyers to determine what you can and can't shoot legally. My understanding (I am not a lawyer nor have I spoke to one) based on a lot of photography classes, seminars and books is the following.
First the technical. For good candids, just use the longest telephoto/zoom that you have. This enables you to be nearly invisable to those you are taking photos of.
Second. The basic premise that I have understood is that in the US, is the expectation of privacy. What the heck is that? Well, if you are in a public park, on the street, at the beach, parade, etc, you are generally not considered in private and therefore can be photographed legally (sort of-as there are always some exceptions). If you are in your home, private business or your own yard, you have and expectation of privacy and therefore a photographer would not have good legal ground to take photos there.
Second issue, is what are the photos used for. If you are not causing harm, exploiting, using their image for promotion (even of your photography skills) making money, etc from someone's likeness in a photo, you can take the photo in public locations.
Ok, now for some advice. Treat others like you would like to be treated. If you had a child and observed someone photographing them, what would you think or do. As the photographer, consider this. To get the shots, take them when no one is aware, as you get better candids this way. I always carry my business cards and photo releases in my bag. Before my subjects leave or I do (or if they see me and have a concerned look on their face) I approach them and introduce myself with my business card. If I am shooting digital, I will even show them the shots taken. I then tell them if they would call me I would be happy to provide them a free set of prints of their child. I explain what I am shooting them for (ie, school assignment, my portfolio, practice, etc). If they are uneasy with me or my work, I offer to delete them in front of them and do so. If they are comfortable with my explanation and shots, I will ask them to sign a photo release and about half will. On my release, I have a line that basically says the person(s) photographed are entitled to a free set of prints. The best advantage (besides getting possible customers later), is that if you got a good shot and want to enter a contest or display the shot publicly, you now have a release giving you permission.
There is a lot to consider for this question and none of us want to be sued or arrested. I picked up a book a few weeks ago at a camera show. It is called Legal Handbook for Photographers by Bert Krages, Esq (I think that means lawyer). It is put out by Amherst Media for $19.95 (I got my book used for about $12). Although I haven't read it, it appears to have quite a bit of good information.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/15/2005
|
Cessy and Mike, thank you good logical advice easy to follow. Mike any chance you have a "standard" release form template one can use? I would have any idea what to say. Thank you both of you for taking the time to answer. Alison
|
|
|
|
Bobbie C.
(K=1425) - Comment Date 3/17/2005
|
Alison, candid photography is one of my favorite things to do. But you really do risk making someone angry - try not to look sneaky about it, and read body language. Rather than asking permission first, and spoiling the moment, I sometimes shoot away, then approach the person, or parent, and tell them that I took the pictures. I just do it for fun, so I don't ask for a model release, but I do offer to send them a print (for free). I get alot of nice thank you cards, and I've gotten requests for more (paid for)! I don't post any of those shots on the internet without permission, though. This is just MY approach. Don't forget, you have the right to photograph, just respect your subjects.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/17/2005
|
Thanks Bobbie that sounds more like my style also don't want to sell them or anything just for myself. Thanks again Good advice.
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 3/18/2005
|
Yes I do but I have a bit of problem. The computer that I kept most all of my stuff like that got killed by a virus. I now have a new computer that I am slowly getting backed up things reloaded into. As soon as I find it, I will get it to you, which may take up to a few weeks. I have some printed out that I can US mail to you if you need them quicker. I believe I made it in Microsoft Word or Works. To be honest, I just did a google search for model release forms and printed out a half dozen or so of the various ones I found that I thought were appropriate (basically minimimal fine print and lawyerspeak). Combined a few and made a form. Again, I am more than happy to share my form with you just let me know how you would like me to send it.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/19/2005
|
Thanks Mike. Let me create a "free email address" I can put on here and I will send it to you.
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/19/2005
|
Mike email is photowoman@webmail.co.za
You can email it to me when you have a chance. Thanks you.
Alison
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 3/20/2005
|
As soon as I locate it, I'll send it to ya.
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 3/21/2005
|
Richard Dakin wrote: "It sometimes helps to be shooting digital, because you can always delete the image on the spot if someone objects."
Unless you run into someone who knows you can retrieve deleted images from flash cards with programs like 'Restoration.' Someone might demand that you physically destroy your new two-gigabyte memory card and have the law on his side.
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12915) - Comment Date 3/22/2005
|
VERY good point Diabo, I never even considered that. Thanks for alerting me. Things seem to get more complicated every day. I am so glad my personal preference is for moody landscapes!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/22/2005
|
Diabo, horror! can you imagine having to do that. Good point thank you. I did my first venture on the beach on the weekend and found I just gestured to the parents with my camera and mouthed "may I?" all said yes but that is probably the safer route. A couple immediatly tried to "straighten, tidy , neated the kid up but there were the majority. Was so happy with a couple of the shots will put them on site later. Thanks for the comment.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/23/2005
|
Sadly it's come to the point where in some countries even looking at other peoples' children brands you as a potential paedophile.
Taking pictures of those children (in any context) can well get you arrested as a child molester...
Therefore be very careful indeed, and always ask permission beforehand from adults (preferably parents but other guardians like teachers should be enough) just so they know what you're doing.
Sneaking around with long teles trying to prevent anyone from seeing you can only make things worse. It shows to paranoid bystanders (and law enforcement) you've something to hide, and where children are concerned more often than not suspicion is guilt these days.
Remember that not 2 years ago a US couple were arrested and their children placed in custody of child welfare when they brought some pictures of their baby in the bathtub to be processed. Their explanation that the images were for the baby album were not enough, they were immediately branded as paedophiles and child porn producers and convicted as such.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Bowden
(K=64141) - Comment Date 3/23/2005
|
Unfortunately, here in the UK legislation has got very bad - my brother is the manager of a childrens soccer team. He and other managers have to remind all parents that video and still photography is not allowed and if caught could result in both camera and equipment being confiscated by security staff patrolling the pitches.
I fear that if we cannot film even our own children playing with their friends we are missing an essential part of their growing up !!
I guess the school photograph is the next thing that will come under close scrutiny.
Model releases are all well and good but I have a photograph of a group of children from rural Turkey taken nearly 20years ago (on my portfolio). The area I took the photo was so poor it would have been doubtful if the parents could even read or write. I initially submitted it to a different site and was told to remove it !
Sad times indeed !!!
Steve
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
If you are in a public place you are free to take photos of everyone. There is definitely no law against that. What it comes to selling those photos that's a whole different story.
While it is perfectly legal to take photos of kids on a playground it is considered a little odd. I have kids myself and if someone would start taking photos of my kids I would definitely feel confused.
I would definitely just talk to the parents. You are in a much better position being a woman. If a woman would approach me and ask me if it was ok to take photos of my kids I would be ok with it. If it was a man that looked like me I would have different feelings. :-) I guess most people would agree with me. (In the end I wouldn't mind though :)
If you have your own kids with you the situation is a lot easier again. Having kids automatically put you in the "no dangerous" category :)
The way that worked very well for me is this: Talk to the parents explaining that you are a hobby photographer looking for interesting portraits. Tell them how much you think their kids would be great models. Parents love to hear prais about their kids :) Offer them to send them free prints of the best photos and make sure to mention that you are not commercially selling those photos. If you have some examples of your photography with you I'm sure you will have a 99% success rate.
Even if you plan to sell those photos I would not mention that at the very first moment. Telling them about commercial marketing will startle them and often their first thought will be money and be confused and maybe even pushed to make a deal now.
If after you seen the results you think those photos might sell, talk to the parents again if they are willing to go that route. But that leads to a whole different situation with model release, compensation and so on.
Again, I just got legal advice on that subject (regarding the USA). It it perfectly legal to take photos of people including children in the public. Noone has the right to restrain you from that. If someone does it or is even demanding you to destroy the photo/film, call the police. It is your right to do that.
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
Not sure if the laws are that way in your country, but in the US it is illegal to demnd photogaphers to destry or hand out their film/digital media. It would simply be considered stealing.
Millitary facilities, private places, private properties are an exception. Police officers can be photographed any time on duty.
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
Hi Steven.
it gives me the creeps to hear that this is the law in the UK! That is not only totally paranoid, but close to sick. Especially since the UK is one of countries that has the most sophisticated surveillance camera network installed to constantly watch the people. "Big brother is watching you" has become a reality there. Used with face recognition software and tracking they can monitor anyone and follow them anywhere. But as a parent you are not allowed to take photos of your kids?
Protecting children this way is total nonsense and skews reality.
The vast majority of child molesters/abusers are acquaintances. Parents, step parents, uncles, aunts, close familiy friends, older siblings. They don't take photos or search the internet for cute children photos. Why would they? Those crimes are only possible because they have a trustful relation to the victim.
There is a small amount of criminals that abuse, harm and even kill children more on a random basis, but those cases are very very little (even though they get big coverage on the media). Again those people are not at all taking photos of children or seach the internet for that.
I found a very interesting publication from an investigator who has been dealing with child abuse cases for 30 years and put together an very interesting profile of those people.
Here is the link for anyone who is interested.
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/info-1075.html
Once you read this you will find out that the whole paranoia about taking photos of kids in the public is nonsense. It is the old image of the evil dark man lurking for kids.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
You are right that the paranoia is not based on any reality or reason but it's there and we have to deal with it.
As a single man I'm automatically suspect, especially living in an area with a lot of kids around (there's 2 schools within a few hundred meters of my home). Luckily noone's ever had a reason to want to harm me or a simple remark to a teacher or police officer about that weird man living in the area could be enough to get me arrested and seriously harassed.
That's what society has come to and we have to live with it.
Don't get me wrong, I know one of the prime instincts of people is to protect children. But indeed it's gone too far and our protectiveness (in all areas) of the kids is now causing harm to those same kids in slowing down their development through overprotection.
So be careful, always get parental permission, and don't whip out that camera until you have it.
If you have your own kids with you, things get easier but apparently in some countries at least even that no longer prevents you from being seen as a pervert for looking at the kids of others.
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
Hi,
I'm impressed with many things I've read here and totally agree with Matej Maceas when he says "I am developing a strong dislike for paranoid societies".
If you want to photograph someone, always ask for permission. Talk to him/her what are your real intentions. If you find appropriate, shoot first and ask later :-) so you don't loose the moment. But communicate, talk, be kind, make new friends, share your photos, be sincere.
I'm afraid many societies are getting really sick nowadays. The prohibitions level is quite a measure of its "health". The reater the restrictions, the sicker it is. Otherwise why'd someone try to protect someone's children from being photographed in a public place, like a park for example, if there weren't lots of people shooting for "bad" purposes?
I'm shocked by the ever incresing number of people using the internet to meet people. if you want to meet someone, wouldn't it be easier to go to a bar, a club or elsewhere where you can meet them for real? Instead, people hide themselves behind screens, new fake personalities, it's all becoming a lie and distorting things. What's worst is that this will become the "natural way" someday. The result is a lack of communication that ends up on kids shooting friends at school, adults looking for "satisfaction" on distorted desires and down the hill humankind goes...
The main difference between humans and animals (who's the real animal?) is our ability to think and communicate. Why not use it? If you find a beautiful person in the streets and want to make an image, just ask, tell you why. If you live in the same town and have access to a studio, ask that person to come by with a parent or a friend another day, maybe you've just discovered a new supermodel. Or just a unique face you find interesting and want to photograph for an essay on faces you're doing. Again, talk, be sincere. You'll be surprised how people identify and react well to sincerity. Even on "sick societies".
I'm happy to live in a country where people take things easier, are more concerned with living their lives than controlling the other's. Here your privacy is respected naturally, there's no need to take your lawyer to the beach.
Thinking about it now I'm wondering if the fact we're latin have a great influence on this. Note that countries that offer more restrictions are always anglo-saxonians or suffer greater influence from these countries. Curious, isn't it?
Antonio Carlos Jobim, Tom Jobim, bossa-nova creator and musician, once said that the USA is nice but it's a s*** and Brazil is a s*** but it's nice. He was pointing directly to this "paranoid societies" target. While in America you've a lot of facilities, money, technology etc., here we're poorer don't have access to many of those things but life and relations here are more real than there. My wife has three cousins living abroad (legally) for more than 7 years. Two in the USA and one on UK. One work for Shell, another in an University and the third is a lawyer. They're all very captivating and communicative. It took 3 years for the one at Shell to have his boss say "good morning" to him! The other two have no more than one or two native friends. What kind of society is this where people do not relate?? Here when we're presented to a new person we shake hands or kiss on the cheeks and no one gets sued for it.
So, after all these words, my advice is: talk, communicate. If a lovely kid is doing lovely things you want to capture, look for his parents and ask them. They'll probably be proud. That's it. Maybe you'll become friends. Maybe they say no. If so, never mind, new opportunities are always showing. The most fascinating subject you can point your camera is another person. Inside him there's always an universe to be explored. Don't let a society's sickness keep you from doing it BUT learn the society's sickness so you don't get jailed ;-) Let's not lose faith on humankind, but remember there are many kinds of humans to deal with...
Regards from Brazil,
Jose Azevedo
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
Stephen Bowden (Donor) (K:45,960) - Mar 23, 2005 said: "Unfortunately, here in the UK legislation has got very bad - my brother is the manager of a childrens soccer team. He and other managers have to remind all parents that video and still photography is not allowed and if caught could result in both camera and equipment being confiscated by security staff patrolling the pitches...."
Woooosh! That is the sound of two fingers shooting skyward. (for non-UK readers think middle finger of either hand sometimes accompanied by slapping the upper arm with the other hand - in the UK the equivalant rude gesture is sort of more like the "V" for victory sign = "two fingers")
Steven... here are the FACTS on that - read my lips: THERE IS NO LAW IN THE UK PREVENTING OR PROHIBITING TAKING PHOTOS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. Full stop! And, to be clear on my position here, you should know that I am a working UK photojournalist fully familiar with the law in this area. Private possession or editorial use of such images is also NOT prohibited by ANY law and does NOT require releases either.
There IS law, however, to prevent "security," or anyone else for that matter, from taking film or seizing cameras from a photographer (a private individual or someone doing so in the course of a trade) working in or on 1) a public place; or 2) in a private place to which they have been allowed access; or 3) taking pictures from any public vantage point of an people or activity taking place in/on private place. The Protection of Children Act DOES NOT APPLY; the Data Protection Act DOES NOT APPLY; the Sexual Offences Act DOES NOT APPLY; and there is NO general "law of privacy" in the UK prohibiting photography in the circumstances.
Any such act on the part of "security" or anyone else amounts to theft in the first instance and may rise, if any threat of, or actual, force is used to breach of the peace; behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace; and/or assault.
If you want to reply, and I surely hope you do, first go along and ask your brother EXACTLY what "LAW" he claims to be referring to....and let us all in on it.
Hunter
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
Day, beware of such statements...
Journalists are allowed to do a LOT of things that other people are not.
If I stalk a member of the royal family for weeks to get a compromising picture I get arrested and thrown in jail, if you do the same it's expected and allowed.
That's just one example...
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
Jeroen Wenting (K:14,263) - Mar 25, 2005 said: Dai, beware of such statements...Journalists are allowed to do a LOT of things that other people are not.
I do not come to this subject in the UK without substantial training on the legal position and background or practical experience. For the non-pro I suggest downloading and reading this UK guide:
Photographer's Rights Guide - UK Specific
The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.M, who is a lecturer in law at Heriot Watt University, with particular experience in Information Technology Law, Intellectual Property Law and Media Law.
download at: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
Journalists in the UK have absolutely NO more rights than any other citizen. Many don't even carry a Press ID and none is required to work as a journalist. We do know, however, where we stand with the law and what the law is. More importantly, we know the limits beyond which we can not go - such as tresspassing or obstruction. Even then, there is absolutly no right to seize film or equipment - even the police can't do that - you may only be asked to leave (ejected) but you must be allowed to do so with whatever you may already have on film and your equipment. In principal anywhere the public is admitted a journalist has the same right to be there - and if the place is a public place, such as a football pitch owned by a Local Education Authority (LEA) or by a Local Authority or County Council (LA or CC) the mere user has no right to even ask you to leave. Only the person in control - e.g. the landowner or their employees - has that right.
The gauntlet is down and if Stephen (or his brother) wants to reply (and I hope he does) and cite chapter and verse of the supposed "law" that they "claim" exists that would prohibit me (or ANY parent or ANY member of the public,) where there is no tresspass, from taking photos at a school's football game... I am all ears.
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
I emailed the release to you today. Hope it helps.
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
UK photographers, pros and amateurs alike, see this:
Photographer's Rights Guide - UK Specific
The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.M, who is a lecturer in law at Heriot Watt University, with particular experience in Information Technology Law, Intellectual Property Law and Media Law.
download at: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
Hunter
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
thanks for pointing that out. Hunter.
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/26/2005
|
Jeroen Wenting (K:14,263) - Mar 25, 2005 said: Dai, beware of such statements...Journalists are allowed to do a LOT of things that other people are not.
I do not come to this subject in the UK without substantial training on the legal position and background or practical experience.
Journalists in the UK have absolutely NO more rights than any other citizen. Many in the UK don't even carry a Press ID and none is required to work as a journalist. We do know, however, where we stand with the law and what the law is. More importantly, we know the limits beyond which we can not go - such as tresspassing or obstruction. Even then, if asked to leave, there is absolutly no right to seize film or equipment - even the police can't do that much less some rent-a-cop "security" stiff - you may only be asked to leave (be ejected but without force being used) but you must be allowed to do so with whatever you may already have on film and your equipment.
In principal anywhere the public is admitted a journalist has the same right to be there - and if the place is a public place, such as a football pitch or parkland owned by a Local Education Authority (LEA) or by a Local Authority or County Council (LA or CC) the mere "user" has no right to even ask you to leave. Only the person in control - e.g. the landowner or their employees - has that right.
The gauntlet is down and if Stephen (or his brother) wants to reply (and I hope he does) and cite chapter and verse of the supposed "law" that they "claim" exists that would prohibit me (or ANY parent or ANY member of the public,) where there is no tresspass, from taking photos at a school's football game... or gives them any legal authority to threaten to confiscate film, tape, media or cameras... I am all ears.
Hunter
|
|
|
|
Stephen Bowden
(K=64141) - Comment Date 3/26/2005
|
Dai, I am not into argy bargy and war on words.
I only stated what was passed over to my brother.
Be it right or be it wrong in this instance is not the point. What is the point is that everyone is following this rule reluctantly or otherwise.
I am not a photojournalist and don't have to make my living this way taking risks or otherwise. To me if someone says don't do it then I don't do.
You obviously have to know the law and I believe what you say - but on the other hand I will still do what I am told !
A punch on the nose often offends, and whatever the law states, even if you are in the right that punch will still hurt. And if everyone else around you are following the rules then I don't think you would get much support or witnesses should your need to press charges comes about ! For reasons past some rules are better left unchallenged at this Merseyside spot if you know what I mean !!
The grounds they play at are private and not public.
Call me a conformist but I personally don't like confrontation Dai. I would rather try and improve my photography than get into a war on words my friend, and I still have a long long way to go in that direction yet - so you can keep your gauntlet :-)
Steve
ps I also heard local swimming baths are clamping down on photography. With you being in the know what can you share on that front ?
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/26/2005
|
Test post only - does not seem to want to accept the prepared reply????
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/26/2005
|
TRY AGAIN!
Stephen Bowden (Donor) (K:46,065) - Mar 26, 2005 asked: ps I also heard local swimming baths are clamping down on photography. With you being in the know what can you share on that front ?
If you are in Merseyside I probably could throw a stone and hit you from here [I am based in Toxteth / South Liverpool - LOL.] I can comment on the leisure centre situation as well as some schools. Yes, some are prohibiting photography with specific "house rules" and those are, indeed must be, attached to adequate notice (condition of entry)... but even for those operated by the Merseyside area LAs there is still, AFAIK, no actual by-laws in place. It is a local decision based on local rule making specific to each facility.
One overriding actual law in that area, however, is the Sexual Offences Act [2003] which does provide for specific prohibitions on "covert" photography in buildings and structures or parts of them (e.g. changing rooms) where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy". - that, in itself, does not cover the entirity of a facility, school or similar place, such as those areas where general entry to spectators and staff is allowed and where there is virtually no real expectation of privacy.
see: http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#67
Sexual Offences Act 2003
(part) 67 Voyeurism
(2); (3); and (4)
and
(part) 68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy,...
That would clearly cover a toilet or changing room but also clearly not cover a public swimming pool or gym. floor... or a football pitch.
As in any other case the only recourse if they catch you breaking the rule is to eject you but they still can not take any of your property - film or camera.
Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/28/2005
|
Stephen Bowden (Donor) (K:46,065) - Mar 26, 2005 asked: ps I also heard local swimming baths are clamping down on photography. With you being in the know what can you share on that front?
If you are in Merseyside I probably could throw a stone and hit you from here [I am based in Toxteth / South Liverpool - LOL.] I can comment on the leisure centre situation as well as some schools. Yes, some are prohibiting photography with specific "house rules" and those are, indeed must be, attached to adequate notice (condition of entry)... but even for those operated by the Merseyside area LAs there is still, AFAIK, no actual by-laws in place. It is a local decision based on local rule making specific to each facility.
One overriding actual law in that area, however, is the Sexual Offences Act [2003] which does provide for specific prohibitions on "covert" photography in buildings and structures or parts of them (e.g. changing rooms) where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy". - that, in itself, does not cover the entirity of a facility, school or similar place, such as those areas where general entry to spectators and staff is allowed and where there is virtually no real expectation of privacy.
see: http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#67
Sexual Offences Act 2003
(part) 67 Voyeurism
(2); (3); and (4)
and
(part) 68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy,...
That would clearly cover a toilet or changing room but also clearly not cover a public swimming pool or gym. floor... or a football pitch.
As in any other case the only recourse if they catch you breaking the rule is to eject you but they still can not take any of your property - film or camera.
Hunter
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Wow what a wonderful response from you all. Obviously a very touchy subject.
It horrifies me that parents cannot take photos of their own children playing or that new parents are jailed for taking photos of their babies.
What is the world comming to. I also agree about keeping children safe and that one should be careful but some countries seem to be taking away basic human rights.
Some good news I have taken your advice and aksed parents before I shoot and had a wonderful response. Emailed copies to each of them that wanted and agreed. When unable to get near enough to ask I let them see I am taking photos hold up my camera and mouth "may I?" pointing at their kids. Once I have the shot I go over and chat and show them what I have done.
Your advcie and comments have all been so valuable thank you all for your replies. Best wishes and happy photos your friend Alison
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Dai, no need to post the same thing a dozen times.
If you put a URL in your message it will NOT appear unless and until approved by moderators.
This is to prevent spamming which happened in the past when people would put in links to sites with questionable, illegal, or grossly off-topic information either to drive their businesses or to drive up their Google rankings (which are determined in large part by crosslinking numbers).
Just wait and your post will appear after a while (though it can take a bit as we're few in number and can't spend all day and night whereever we are checking the forums for posts that need approval).
|
|
|
|
Alison Stroebel
(K=4069) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Oops Jeroen I am also guilty I didn't realise that was the case. Probably the same for Dai. Soooo sorry all of you in there. :-)
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Legal matters, house rules and bylaws aside, what about your and my right NOT to be photographed when swimming in a pool, working out in a gym, or being passed out drunk in the gutter after a long night of pubcrawling?
Taking pictures of your kids, friends, and family is one thing. Taking pictures of other people (or their kids) without asking them first is another. People are not props for photographers, even if they're in a public place.
Obviously, if you're in a public place you can get caught on film or chip by chance because you happen to be near the photographers object of interest, but being the object of interest yourself is a different story.
Example: there are lots of pictures of beggars scattered all over usefilm. Homeless guy begging in the subway station, sleeping drunk in the parking lot, crippled beggar on the sidewalk, etc. I'm sure most usefilmers never asked for permission before or after taking the shot. In my opinion, anyone who is the involuntary subject of a picture has all the right in the world to sue the pants off whoever took the shot without asking and posted it on a site like this one.
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Jeroen Wenting (K:14,453) - Mar 29, 2005 said: Dai, no need to post the same thing a dozen times.
If you put a URL in your message it will NOT appear unless and until approved by moderators.
Thanks for the heads up on that >hidden< feature... I did look for some reference to it in the HELP / FAQ but found no reason why the post didn't appear noted there. All I did notice was that the message char count [comment length] on the typed message went to "0" as soon as the preview was selected and that the message did not obviously post - thought it was a Java or other problem with my machine or the site.
I do appologise to the moderators for that. It might be helpful to others, now that I am aware of it, to note that in the site FAQ or even on the reply page itself as an extra text line at the bottom along with "If it looks the way you want it to..."
Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Diabo (K:1,631) - Mar 29, 2005 asked: "Legal matters, house rules and bylaws aside, what about your and my right NOT to be photographed..."
Fortunately... or unfortunately... depending on which side of the camera you are on, the courts have never held that you have such a general "right" not to be photographed in circumstances where they perceive that you have little or no expectation of privacy (public places; private places to which the general public is admitted; or from vantage points on public places even if the photograph is of a private place but open to general view) - in fact these are often referred to collectively as "The Public Place Rule" Only a very few exceptions exist such as in court rooms but even that is being eroded in the US with TV cameras in the courts and which are also being considered to a limited extent in the UK.
Only one jurisdiction that I can think of that has passed specific general law concerning street photography is France. Unfortunately, you can not deal with the question as one of "legal matters; house rules; and by-laws aside" because the issue IS a legal one and the rights of the photographers to make and even use images have been established for 100+years and consistantly reinforced over time by additional case law both in North America and Europe.
At last estimate security cameras in any large British city will capture your image as many as 350 time in a day. Government owned cameras in the open and private security camers in all manner of business places. In reality what difference does a street photographer really make in the face of that photographic onslaught by government and private businesses?.
Hunter
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
"At last estimate security cameras in any large British city will capture your image as many as 350 time in a day (...) In reality what difference does a street photographer really make in the face of that photographic onslaught by government and private businesses?"
__
Not the same thing. In my country (The Netherlands), presence of security cameras must be clearly indicated. Private security cameras may not be pointed to the street, and there are strict rules spelling out who can see the footage and who can not. After a certain period set by law the captured data must be erased.
Street photographers can make pictures or movies without informing you in advance. Especially now that cameras are built into phones, keyrings, and some perverts build them into their shoes to shoot pics up the skirts of unsuspecting girls.
Security camera footage doesn't end up all over the internet. Publication is usually only allowed to solve a crime, and only after permission from a judge.
Either way, legal matters, house rules and bylaws aside, a street photographer who points his camera at me without asking first will find himself in big trouble, even if "the rights of the photographers to make and even use images have been established for 100+years and consistantly reinforced over time by additional case law both in North America and Europe."
It is more than just a legal matter.
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
A street photographer who points his camera at you may actually be waiting until you get out of the frame so that he can shoot whatever or whomever you're standing in front of.
A street photographer who does not point his camera at you at all may have you as the main subject of the photo thanks to a wide-angle lens.
Don't be too quick to cause big trouble to people.
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
OK, let me put the small print this way:
A street/beach/whatever photographer who points his camera at me (or tries to play tricks with a wide angle lens) with an obvious intention of making a picture of me instead of whatever object I happen to be standing near, without asking first, will get in big trouble, regardless of legal matters, house rules and bylaws.
I'm not for banning street photography or forcing photographers to ask everyone on Trafalgar Square for permission before pointing their camera at Nelsons Column. You can shoot pics of Times Square, even though there are always people there.
But that doesn't mean you can shoot pictures of anyone anytime just because they happen to be in a public place. If you intend to click at someone (or their kids), you ask first. And if they object, you don't shoot the picture. Most people won't object, but you should respect the rights of those who do. Even if those rights are not spelled out in (usually outdated) local laws that were made before the invention of things like internet and camera phones.
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
(K=22223) - Comment Date 3/29/2005
|
Assuming the laws are very similar in the Netherlands, you will find yourself in even more trouble if you happen harrass the photographer.
You can't claim a right you don't have. The photographer is claiming a right that a democracy has agreed to. Your attitude to enforce your own rules and neglecting the law reminds me of old wild west movies.
Society only works when people agree on common rules, not by everyone enforcing their own ideas of they think it right.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
There is however a big difference between theory and practice.
In theory you may be in your right to photograph people in public (but beware you'll likely need a model release if they can be recognised and the photo is being published), in practice these days you may well get your head bashed in.
That fact doesn't change the theory but it does put you in hospital...
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
You can often exercise rights you don't legally have if the circumstances are right. Yanking out the film of someone who photographed you against your will may be technically illegal, but it's unlikely to cause you any serious legal trouble. Many laws are not enforced to the letter when doing so would obviously go against the spirit of the law.
In The Netherlands, it is usually illegal to take pictures of someone who objects to it. The victim has the legal right to use reasonable force to restrain the offending photographer untill the police arrives, and his film/memory card/camera can be kept by the police pending legal proceedings. A judge can order destruction of the photographs.
Laws on things like privacy and copyright vary wildly within the EU. For example, privacy laws in NL are quite strict compared to the UK, and the way the british use their surveilance cameras is illegal in any other european country. On the other hand, dutch laws on copyright (and on the use of recreational drugs) are way more liberal than elsewhere in europe.
The new french laws appear overly restrictive. If you shoot a street scene that includes someone walking his dog in the park, you can't post it on usefilm without permission unless you blur out the dogs face beyond recognition.
The british laws as quoted in the paper Dai linked to seem to be too much on the side of photographers at the expense of those involuntarily trapped at the other side of the lens. Or maybe not. According to the story, taking pictures of people against their will in public places is not covered by any specific law, so judges need to shop around in more-or-less related laws on harrassment, privacy, and the data protection act. A sort of legal roulette with unpredictable results, since a judge would need to balance several conflicting laws.
Dutch laws are somewhere in between those extremes. As with many other dutch laws, Article 21 of the 'Author Act' is deliberately vague. A quick glance through recent court orders on the web indicates you can shoot street scenes if you have no reason to assume people will object. In real life, this means you're free to take pictures of the crowd on Dam Square. But not in Amsterdams red light district, since it's reasonable to expect that the window shoppers over there will object to such an invasion of privacy. If you take pictures of the girls in the windows, your camera will end up in the nearest canal and you'll find little sympathy in court.
If you zoom in on someone specific, you usually need their permission no matter where you are. Exceptions apply for shooting pics of politicians or others who can reasonably expect that being photographed is part of their job.
Belgian law seems pretty clear. You don't need permission to take pictures of people in general, but you do need permission if an individual is the main subject of the image. Except when you shoot politicians.
In most South American countries I've visited, you need to ask permission before photographing individuals. People in colorful traditional outfits usually object because they believe that when your take their picture, you also take a piece of their soul. Then they ask for money, because apparently losing bits of your soul is not so bad if you get paid for it.
The 'free for all' laws of the UK violate a bunch of european laws and directives, such as the European Union Privacy Directive (which applies to all data that can be linked to a specific person, including pictures) and article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
France is weird anyway. There you need a release form for any property.
If you shoot a building you need to get a release from the building owner before you can use that photo anywhere (even if not for profit). I'm not sure if the law is ever enforced though :)
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
Working the street - UK
1/5
|
|
concentration
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
Working the street - UK
2/5
|
|
girl about to flash
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
Working the street - UK
3/5
|
|
stay perfect
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
Working the street - UK
4/5
|
|
surprised
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 3/30/2005
|
Working the street - UK
5/5
Interesting that all the "marketeers" [titled: concentration; surprised; and yummy food] are in fact French citizens holding on an Easter market in the UK... The other two [girl about to flash; and stay perfect] are just random people on the street.
These were all shot while working with one of my students on doing street photography, and selected from ca250 frames we shot that afternoon.
Hunter
|
|
yummy food
|
|
