digg

What about if I take a phenomenal picture of a total stranger and get offered money for it? Would I need a model release? What if I don't have one?

too bad for canadians, but here in america I can take a picture of almost whatever.

...I think.

I'm not worried. I mean I take all my pictures in my basement.
Now then: it puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again.

@MrVisible -- Yes you would. If not, you have chance of being forced to pay compensation to the individual filing against you.

And why is this news? Just because the government is allowed to take advantage of the public doens't mean we can. Where have you been, welcome back.

Well thats pretty lame. It seems like theres nothing to fight for anymore in court cases. All of the meaningful cases happened like decades ago, and now we have supreme court cases about gold-digging pornstars trying to get money from their soon-to-be dead husband.

Of course it's OK to take a picture of someone in public as long as it's not up their skirt etc...
The problem comes when that picture taken in public is put on the internet, tv, newspaper, etc...
When I think of Public, I think of Immediate public, as in the people right there that I can see in front of me. I don't want my picture floating on the net without my consent. I choose to go out where I don't mind being seen.

In the United States, you have the right to take pictures of almost anything and anyone. The only time you can't take someone's picture is when the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, taking a picture through a living room window of a person inside would not be okay, because the person in the house has a reasonable expectation that they are in the privacy of their own home. A person sitting out in public is allowing everyone around them to see them with their own two eyes, and there's absolutely nothing they can do about having their picture taken, because they have implicitly consented to being seen by the public. If you are allowed inside a private business, you can take all the pictures you want, but if security asks you to leave, you have the legal obligation to do so. But if security asks for your camera or film/memory card, you do not have the legal obligation to give it up. But since it is a private business, they may sue you if you publish the photos. That doesn't mean you can't legally take them.

Generally, though, if you are going to be making a profit off of the photos, you have to make a reasonable effort to get releases from anyone that you can. But if you're photographing a building, and there are 30 people walking by on the sidewalk in front, it's unreasonable to expect the photographer to be able to catch all 30 people and get releases.

This is my understanding as a photographer and cinematographer. I'm sure there are many more specific nuances of the law, but basically, if you can see it in public with your own two eyes, you can take a photo of it, and even publish it.

So if I take a picture in a public place and someone in the picture happens to be very sensitive over having their pictures taken, I could get sued? BS!

Avoid taking pictures of the Amish.... they kinda don't like that :-)

I just did a bit of research on the Quebec girl thing, since I actually had a hunch it might have been *****. But I guess it's true.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html
http://www.adidem.org/articles/privacy1.html


I haven't been able to find the picture itself, but it seems to be described as a picture pretty much of the girl, which is something I would definitely get signed consent before publishing. If the picture was specifically of the building and she happened to be sitting there, or if lots of people were in the picture.. different story. Stupid I know, but that's what happens when society is too stupid to function for itself without laws, and needs a gov't pushing corporate agendas based on making money off of copyright and images. You don't need police and laws , governments and courts to solve something like this. just ask "hey, can I take a picture of you?"

The sad thing is this girl probably has a crapload of pictures of herself on her ***** myspace page... "teehee".

If a photographer comes up and takes your picture, you should be flattered that he thought you were interesting enough to photograph. If you're concerned about privacy, fight the government sticking surveillence cameras everywhere, not some dude with a 35mm.

Mike

In the U.S., on any public ground, you can legally take a photo. Where you can't is if you take a photo from legal ground into someone's house(which is private property).

When photographing persons, you can only sell it for editorial use(newspapers). No commercial use is legal without conscent(model release). And of course buildings are a no-no without conscent(if you want to do commercial stuff with the background-if its identifiable). And with the terrorism stuff, you are very likely to run into a security guard with many buildings these days. And be aware, that they'll likely make you delete your stuff(so good to have backup-recovery software-just don't take any new photos if you delete).

So people in public are okay, although if you do photograph kids, you have to be aware that parents might be hostile, which is always possible. I've faced mine, doing my photojournalism stuff. The best way is to make yourself very visble, as to look like you aren't hiding something.

Anyway, posting someone on a website/portfolio type thing is fine if those qualifications were met, as long as you don't sell it for commercial profit(editorial-newspapers are okay).

I'd be skeptical about being photographed by strangers. Your image could wind up Photoshop'd on some porn advertising, or something obscure and not seen by the general public. It may not be the work of the person that photographed you, but perhaps the photographer posted it on a Flickr account. And then some jerk comes along, does a right-click-save, and then adds your face to a flyer for a new porn shop or strip club.

well I guess I'm in the clear. I really haven't taken any pictures of underage teens having sex at bus stops on military bases for my own sexual gratification but now that you bring it up..

Great tips but this kinda seems like obvious common sense. Then again these days I guess even that has become rare. Yeah W '04!

You're allowed to take pictures of anyone and anything in a public place, how do you think paparrazzi's work?

As quite a few people obvioulsy fail to realise: it depends on the laws in the country in question.
Seems to me the laws in Quebec aren't too different from the laws here - if a person is a part of the picture, it's legal to do with as you wish, but if the main motif of the picture is an individual, publishing it requires the consent of that individual. That's why a group of people is usually ok to publish, as is a picture of a building even if it has some people in front of it. In this case, the girl on the steps was the motif, not the building or the steps themselves (I haven't seen the picture, I'm just making an assumption).

On occasion you'll probably have pictures where the individual may or may not be the main motif of the picture, in which case I suppose people could sue, but lawsuits hasn't quite become a potential fast-track to wealth here the way it has in certain other parts of the world.

I recall reading about this in a book at a local library (Winnipeg, Manitoba).

The laws about that sort of stuff in Canada seemed more relaxed than in the United States. Although Quebec may be different, I think in the rest of Canada, you can take pictures of anything you want in public.

If anyone is interested in this subject, look up "photography" and "law" in your library. There's this little book that had piles of information. I know I have the title written down somewhere....

I reckon in the USA that if you are in a public place you can have your picture taken. That is why the stars hate the paparazzi, because they cannot just sue the crap out of them.

Now I do not think you could use that photo to endorse something. If George Clooney had his picture snapped while drinking a Pepsi, I don't think Pepsi Co could use that in an ad.

Besides a remember a strip joint in Florida a few months ago that the residents wanted out of their town. They would snap all the patron's pictures and post them on the web as a way to shame them from going there.

Some laws in Quebec are retarded and this is definitely one of them. I live here in Montreal and the amount of stupid laws here is unbelieveable.

For example, the language laws that they have here are completely insane. If you own a store, the sign for your store has to have the title in French and English. On top of that, the French title has to be 1.5 times the size of the English one. The language crap also applies to schools, but I won't delve further into that...

Giving an $8000 fine for taking a picture of someone is completely insane, that would mean that any kind of paparazzi could be taken down, and if you're visiting Quebec, you have to make sure that any pictures you take don't include outside people in them, since it could potentially cost you that amount of money.

Tabarnak! ca pas dallure!

How do people not understand this concept? When I shoot people (for video) to use in my productions, I get a release form signed whether I am paid for the production or not. If I was shot and my image was used without my knowledge or consent, I would be *****. On the other hand, fair use would allow you to take a shot that incidentally had a person in it without the requirement of a release or compensation (for example, you shoot a building and a person was walking by). It's when you make that person the object of the content that there is a problem.

(BTW this is my personal opinion and how I would like to be treated in this instance, I'm no lawyer)

I wouldn't want random people taking shots of me. Especialy without me knowing, but then again I wouldn't know heh. I would rather not see my picture altered somewhere on the internet. :[
-Ant

Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm - photographer's rights in America
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php - photographer's rights in the UK
http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml - photographer's rights in Australia - also includes information (though not much) on New Zealand, Canada, USA, England, and France
All of them are written by lawyers, and they seem to pretty much agree that you're allowed to take pictures in public without anyone's consent, unless one person is the main focus of the photograph.

unsilon24- Typical french attitude. I lived in Germany for two years. While I was there, I went to many other countries. And the French are complete assholes. They seem to have forgotten that without the dirty Americans, they wouldn't have a ***** country.

On a different note. I live in Colorado and I am totally sick of walking through wal-mart and seeing everything in Spanish first and then English. Or calling Comcast cable and having to hit #1 for English. They should have the illegals hit one, and the rest just hold for a CSR. And if they are legal, then learn the ***** language...

I still don't fully don't understand that law. I live in Quebec and last winter after a huge snowstorm a picture of me trying to clear the snow off my car got published in the newspaper. I was fully recognizable... in fact, a friend of mine recognized me and told me to check out the newspaper and buy a scrapbook! I remember seeing the photographer but I didn't know he was working for a newspaper and he did not ask my permission for anything. I thought it was pretty cool to have my picture in the newspaper, but I always wondered if I could have sued their asses or something.

OK, I've got nothin . . but let me summarize (a lot of silly comments :(

in private, persons usually have right to privacy.
But in public, no real restrictions unless person stops you. but if already shot, done is done.
unless for profit (i.e. of a model), no real restrictions. for profit (model) usually needs a signed release from the person being photographed, unless they are a public official or persona (i.e. politician, famous, movie stars, etc.). This is how the paparazzi get paid.

generally, US goes this way. expect UK and the commonwealth to be similar, including canada except Quebec (looks like obezyana had good links). Expect similarities in France and Quebec. Speaking of paparazzi, anyone know what the rules are in Italy (rotfl).

But still you have to be careful so that issues like libel, slander and/or defamation dont' arise.

I remember a Girl who sued the guys from Girls Gone Wild. Claimed they violated her right of privacy because they filmed her in public in New Orleans during Mardi Gras (pre-Katrina, sigh :( where she was extremely drunk and exposing her breasts.... As i recall this inDUHvidual lost her suit. So, as long as you don't take shots of womens' breasts in public...nah, forget that - I go to bike week too much (check out daytonatie.com! (sorry for the plug - love Tie).... Oh, now I remember my point - dont take pictures of inDUHviduals!

Of course I see a counter-suit for being sued over women's bare breast photos - since men's breasts are fair game, that constitues gender discrimination (take them off ladies). Anyways, even totally nude women isn't indecent (based on "exposure of genitals"), since women't reproductive organs are internal (this is another one proven in court),,, now what was my point....? OH, you shouldn't be sued for photographing nude women (or posting their pics) because it isn't indecent or defamatory. I LOVE ART, don't you?

of course, this might not be valid in Quebec - might be kinda cold to be nude. which is why all you everyone comes to florida (leave the clothes back home).
Now what was my point....?

I had a crazy situation myself. I was walking down town in my city, on ths sidewalk. I stood in the street and took a picture of an Antique store. They had murch outside laying next to the building. I had my fisheye lens and I thought it would be a really neat shot. The owner was completley irrate with me because I didn't ask her to take a picture of the OUTSIDE of her store. I was on a public street and sidwalk. She started spouting laws and "she ownd the store"...blah blah..I just walked away. I was a little disappointed that she was such a bitch about it.

I did have this idea of creating my own "photo company", generating a lanyard badge of the false company..cause lord knows, if you have a lanyard, you are official. Then have my longest and most expensive looking lens and camera combo, and a big black camera bag strapped to me. I guarantee if you try this, NO ONE will hassle you. In fact, strangers might pose. Its the 40 y.o guys that have 3 MP Sony Cyber Shots and are taking pictures of kids at the park that worry's people...but with my get up..you are sure to be hassle free ;)

I can't speak to the legalities, but I did have an uncomfortable situation of my own. See the image and read the story here...
http://highlysubjective.com/index.php?showimage=55