What is Digg?134 Comments
- weiwuwei, on 02/27/2008, -1/+125From Wikipedia, Street photography - Photographing without permission: In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. Regarding publication: In general, one cannot publish someone's image to endorse a product or service without first acquiring a "model release," which is usually a contract between the publisher or photographer and the subject.
- N3tw0rk, on 02/27/2008, -2/+113Pro Tip: Don't take any pictures of police or you might get tazed.
- iamabootdisk, on 02/27/2008, -6/+78now that's a cool story. i was wondering though... what's the legality of taking someone's picture and not telling them, and then posting it on the internet for millions to see? i mean.. i would certainly hope there would be no problem with it. but you know how some people can be.
- ricin, on 02/27/2008, -0/+41I carry a printed copy of this PDF in my camera bag: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
I'm amazed at how many people don't know about these rights. - dotlizard, on 02/27/2008, -1/+39i always think that strangers are going to feed me my camera if i point it at them. but i am generally kind of paranoid that way. never had to eat a camera though!
- ekSD, on 02/27/2008, -1/+39Another pro tip: military bases are a huge no-no.
- wildfire, on 02/27/2008, -0/+33That's how I got my last restraining order!
- wildfire, on 02/27/2008, -0/+17Including those still pending?
- Stonedonkey, on 02/27/2008, -0/+16The law makes a distinction between "public figure" and "private citizen." Celebrities, professional athletes, and politicians all fall into the first group. There are some gray areas, naturally.
- gustavbb, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15I doubt Diane Arbus or Robert Frank ever got sued for not getting model releases for their pictures ... if you're acting weird on the street, expect to have your picture taken!
- poploserdigg, on 02/27/2008, -1/+16me too, but replace "funny" with "pervy"
- bxblox, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15NYC pro-top: If cops see you taking pictures of anything, reconsider.
- stockefeller, on 02/27/2008, -1/+16If photographers require a model release, how in the hell do the Paparazzi get away with taking pictures of celebrities without their permission?
- thedarkrabbit, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1480% of all my photos are of strangers....
- DeathJux, on 02/27/2008, -0/+14Fun story:
I was walking around Regent Street in London taking pictures this last December, and as I wandered down the street I noticed Picadilly Circus was blocked off with police tape. I set up my tripod to get a shot of the blocked off street, and a police officer came up and asked me if I had permission to shoot there, claiming it was illegal, "especially with a tripod." I told her that it was public property, and I asked if there were any special restrictions on the area. She cited the "terrorist act of 2000" and said I had to leave.
I moved on without making a scene, though I'm pretty sure I was in the right. I later learned that Picadilly Circus was closed due to a bomb threat, so I'm wondering if she was being overly cautious or something. - bossm4n, on 02/27/2008, -0/+11I believe you meant Henri Cartier-Bresson. And yes, he was an outstanding photographer. No surprise that this "reminded" you of him--he invented the genre of street photography roughly 80 years ago.
- bamafun, on 02/27/2008, -0/+11so how many have you had???
- dolphus, on 02/27/2008, -0/+11Great pictures. And that warm fuzzy confirmation that if you try this you won't be "beaten or chased" :)
- MrTito, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8I found out the hard way that this isn't always great. I was taking pictures with some friends of mine at state park trade days here in Alabama (kinda like a flea market [and if you don't know flea market, maybe dirt mall?]). Nothing like that can make you feel like your life or at least property might be in danger when a bunch of rednecks cover up their "antique" rifles and Nazi memorabilia while giving you the evil eye.
Also seeing the creepy, old man who's missing half of his teeth hitting on 15-year old girls makes you want to take a shower... in another state. - hoostasauce, on 02/27/2008, -2/+10^ creeper
- Biks, on 02/27/2008, -1/+9My pictures stopped coming back since I've gone digital. (I wonder where they went?)
- centran, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8Here is an article that dives into the very very very gray area of photographing people and getting a model release. It is a long read.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release
Basically it is what weiwuwei said. In the US if you are on the street you can legally take photographs of people. The gray area come with how you are going to use the picture. One area that is not gray is advertising. If you are going to use it in a blatant advertisement then you need a model release. Everything else is gray. - smithchr, on 02/27/2008, -1/+8How is someone making money due to a posting on Flickr? Yahoo (Flickr's owner) has license agreements in place with its users which essentially say that all posted material is the user's and the poster retains copyright. Yahoo doesn't take the photo and use it in ads or to sell a product. And the Flickr user who posts the material in their account doesn't make money by posting the photo - they're simply displaying it.
Also, the point is that he doesn't want to ask people if he can take their photo - he wants their genuine reactions. If you ask someone if you can take their photo they either a) say no b) look at you weird or c) say yes and smile. In each of these cases, the basic reason for taking a street photog photo is gone.
For your friend, he was certainly in his rights to be upset - but a dance company made a commercial using him. Reputable stock photography companies dictate that if the person is recognizable (not just their face - could be a characteristic movement or typical clothing item) then you must obtain a model release in order to sell a photo with a person in it. - LloydBentsen, on 02/27/2008, -1/+8My favorite is the picture of the gorilla. It reminds me of the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
- crazyeyezkilla, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6These are really not that great.
- Zalyster, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Switch to black and white mode, done.
Throw in a sepia here and there for some added wows. - undershirt, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Be inconspicuous. That's how you get candid shots anyway.
- Beaches, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6personally, not a fan of the black and white photos, they work sometimes, but i like more colour to really see the emotions and feelings of a photo.
- GawtMilk, on 02/27/2008, -1/+7Come on people, he forgot an "i". It's evident that English isn't his first language, don't be so prissy about it.
- MyDiggIsBig, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6SF pro tip - There is a chance you may be hit on if you take a picture of other guys.
- dwninjungleland, on 02/27/2008, -4/+9What you're doing is called Creepy
- MikeFallopian, on 02/27/2008, -2/+7This guy got front-paged for taking pictures of strangers? When I tried that, all I got was six months in county. Stupid technicalities about installing cameras in the ladies' locker room...
- spineaches, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5well that wouldnt be too tasty, now would it.
- vornan19, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5The pictures were taken in public places where no expectation of privacy should be expected. It is not illegal at all in the USA.
Newspapers print pictures of people all the time and I am sure they done't give on red cent to the photographee. - jj101, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5What you're writing is called "paranoid".
- inactive, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4It's all about "expectations of privacy".
In The Photographer's Right, Oregon attorney Bert P. Krages II writes: "The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statue or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.” Subjects that can "almost always be photographed lawfully from public places" include accident and fire scenes, children, celebrities, law enforcement officers and private homes. - airburst, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4Am I the only one who is annoyed when captions are above the photos?
- GawtMilk, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4A good way to avoid model releases yet still obtain good photos is to not directly photograph the faces of subjects. It's perfectly fine otherwise -- I was out shooting a couple of days ago and people were turning away and ignoring me; common if you're shooting street. It's best to acknowledge both the ease of avoiding faces and work with the image of someone from behind -- the impersonality is an element of street photos that people often love.
Look at two of Cartier-Bresson's most famous photos -- there's no facial connection between you and the subject, yet they are powerful images that find interest in the mundane -- what street is all about. Street photography is not portraiture.
http://www.cameraposition.com/podcast/images/Carti ...
http://pages.cthome.net/rwinkler/cartier.jpg
Here are two instances [disclaimer:i took these] where the "models" turned away or said "no", yet I worked around it. I find them to still be interesting photographs -- it's all about being courageous yet not pushy.
http://flickr.com/photos/charlesviper/2277171078/i ...
http://flickr.com/photos/charlesviper/2276378481/i ... - brentinkc, on 02/27/2008, -6/+10Good photography, but I was hoping for something funny.
- inactive, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4ummmmmmm no. If it's "news" or "documentary" then NO RELEASE. public figure or not. I guess that by saying someone is a public figure then the pictures ARE news..... but if you are in a car wreck, I can take your picture and SELL it to a NEWS outlet, because we have THE FIRST AMENDMENT....... for now
- inactive, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Yes, and the ones that have expired.
- centran, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3BossKey I think what Linagee was referring to was the photo's in the digg article linked.
And now you see the gray area you get into. Is he advertising? Does he owe the people he shot anything?
The better question is put a dollar amount on how much he "made" from that article. Can you? Then are the people he photographed owed something?
Even if he had adsense and you can pull a dollar amount from that... Would you say the article is "news worthy" and therefore does not require a model release because it is news?
See how much "fun" this can get. Bottom line.... If you can get someone to sign a model release then do it! You never know when it might come in handy. - AbsurdParadox, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Excellent usage of streetwording.
- dkruta, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Regarding video, you typically need a permit because video equipment tends to block public areas and pedestrian traffic, whereas photography usually doesn't require more than stopping, pointing and shooting. Once you add equipment like a tripod, the lines between the two get blurred. I know in NYC you need a permit to shoot video when using stationary equipment, but it's ok to shoot handheld and take photographs.
- copyland, on 02/27/2008, -1/+4yawn. is that it? can't wait for "pictures of strangers- part 2"
- jd33, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3I would be happy with them if I took them myself, but definitely not digg worthy.
- earther, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Sounds like heaven to me.
- Rotzooi, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3You're not kidding. I was taking pictures of a (for me) completely random building, together with a bunch of Japanese tourists, and I got harrassed by a real pain of a cop. Didn't end up giving the camera or deleting the pictures, which is what he wanted, but that little run-in didn't leave me with a good feeling.
- sajnikanth, on 02/27/2008, -3/+6But..strangers usually want to take pictures of me *looks in mirror...scratches head*
- WarMachineWCLH, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Want to play a fun game? If you're ever at a party or a bar and you see some people you don't know taking a group shot, try to sneak in the background and look like you're in the group. I like to imagine that when they go to look at the pictures in the morning they look at me and say "Who the ***** is that guy?"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
