| [Rant] People that don't want their picture taken in PUBLIC Honestly, I have seen so many people whine and complain that they should have some privacy in public. I take pictures of businesses,people, cars, and a lot of other things and people come up and say, "stop taking pictures of me". Well, your in public. There is no expectation of privacy in public. I do not anybody's permission to take pictures of them, their car, or their business in public. I do not take pictures of anything on private property. There is a reason it is called, Public, because things are not Private, like your picture.
--
No Victim=No Crime |
|
 The PigI know you want to be mePremium
join:2009-09-11 | If you was to publish these pictures for money you can be sued! |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 | reply to billydunwood
There's a reason that Google has blurred out the faces of people in their street view pictures.
I do think that if you take a picture of someone in public, post it on a website, and they submit a take-down request, you pretty much have to comply. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Wrong. Sending someone a take down request for a publically taken picture will not require that anyone has to take down a picture of you online.
You can freely take pictures of people in public and it is legal for you to post those pictures online. People cant stop this.
Google has no legal requirement to blur faces in the US.
They do it voluntary to avoid having to deal with complaints and frivioulus civil suits.
There are some countries in the world that do require google to block the faces so they had to invent the filtering technology anyways so it was nothing to blur all faces.
It is just easier to blur faces instead of having to deal with people's complaints.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | reply to billydunwood
Although it is legal for you to take pictures of random people in public.
Doing so when people dont want their picture taken is just being a dick.
Why do you want to be a dick???
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
 XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | reply to r81984
said by r81984:Wrong. Sending someone a take down request for a publically taken picture will not require that anyone has to take down a picture of you online.
You can freely take pictures of people in public and it is legal for you to post those pictures online. People cant stop this.
Not entirely correct. If being used for commercial purposes, if someone could be considered the main subject of the photo they do in fact have rights to their image in said photo. Someone sitting on a bench for example. |
|
 Mr NeutronCeaseless, Tasteless, and GormlessPremium
join:2005-05-30
Gorham, ME | said by Xioden:said by r81984:Wrong. Sending someone a take down request for a publically taken picture will not require that anyone has to take down a picture of you online.
You can freely take pictures of people in public and it is legal for you to post those pictures online. People cant stop this.
Not entirely correct. If being used for commercial purposes, if someone could be considered the main subject of the photo they do in fact have rights to their image in said photo. Someone sitting on a bench for example. The way I've been told "smart" photographers handle this is that they give the subject a dollar or two, then ask them to sign a release. A release is simply documentation that says the photographer can do what they like with the picture (including sell it).
You can probably get away with posting pictures taken in a public place on facebook, but I sure wouldn't try to sell them without a signed release.
said by billydunwood:I do not take pictures of anything on private property. There is a reason it is called, Public, because things are not Private, like your picture.
I've run into a few folks who earnestly believe places like restaurants and shopping malls are "public property." I find myself wondering if that might be the case here, too.
--
Joey? Do you like movies about gladiators? |
|
|
|
 JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
1 edit | Malls, and restaurants are not public places. They are privately owned.
Edit - I think we need our resident lawyer, Goober, to weigh in. |
|
Mr NeutronCeaseless, Tasteless, and GormlessPremium
join:2005-05-30
Gorham, ME | said by Juggernaut:Malls, and restaurants are not public places. They are privately owned.
Yes, I know. What I was trying to get at is that a place of business like a restaurant or a mall is not necessarily "public property" simply because members of the public are admitted on the premises.
--
Joey? Do you like movies about gladiators? |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | And, you are quite correct friend. That was a bit of a blanket statement for the thread. |
|
disy
join:2003-01-02
Norwalk, CT | reply to billydunwood
you sound creepy - why are you taking pictures of strangers? |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | reply to billydunwood
What ever happened to respecting people? If someone is asking you not to take their pictures, be respectful and don't take their picture.
Why do you have to be an ass about it?
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Xioden
said by Xioden:Not entirely correct. If being used for commercial purposes, if someone could be considered the main subject of the photo they do in fact have rights to their image in said photo. Someone sitting on a bench for example.
That is not true.
The person snapping the photo has the copyright and can pretty much do with it what they want. No consent is required.
Tabloids would have no pictures if what you say was true.
The only restricting in public places is like a restroom or public places one would expect privacy.
The problem is when you take a picture of someone in public that is a celebrity or well known and try to use it for commercial use. Doing so is 100% legal, but that person can sue you civilly if they feel their image is basically a trade mark and should be protected.
Getting a release of someone in pubilc just protects you from a possible frivioulus civil suit in the future if you use it for commercial purposes, but is never required.
It takes a lot of money for them to sue you and block you from using a picture taken in a public place.
Now it does take a complete dick to take pictures in public of people without their consent. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | said by r81984:said by Xioden:Not entirely correct. If being used for commercial purposes, if someone could be considered the main subject of the photo they do in fact have rights to their image in said photo. Someone sitting on a bench for example.
That is not true. The person snapping the photo has the copyright and can pretty much do with it what they want. No consent is required. Tabloids would have no pictures if what you say was true. The only restricting in public places is like a restroom or public places one would expect privacy. The problem is when you take a picture of someone in public that is a celebrity or well known and try to use it for commercial use. Doing so is 100% legal, but that person can sue you civilly if they feel their image is basically a trade mark and should be protected. Getting a release of someone in pubilc just protects you from a possible frivioulus civil suit in the future if you use it for commercial purposes, but is never required. It takes a lot of money for them to sue you and block you from using a picture taken in a public place. Now it does take a complete dick to take pictures in public of people without their consent. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. Depending where you are, yes, it is true. Look up rights of privacy/publicity. In many states people's image/likeness/voice/etc. are considered protected, even in public.
For example in New York: "§ 50. Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for
advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait
or picture of any living person without having first obtained the
written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
You better damn well have gotten a release before you decided to use that person's photo, regardless of where it was taken! |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:What ever happened to respecting people? If someone is asking you not to take their pictures, be respectful and don't take their picture.
Why do you have to be an ass about it?
The OP didn't say that he continues to take their picture after they have come up to him and asked him to "stop taking my picture"
My assumption from his post is that he in fact stops, but is just ranting about the fact that the subject person first assumes that their picture will NOT be taken at ANY time.
From what I gather from the OP's post, he does respect people. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | He should not be creepin taking pictures of strangers in public. Yes it is legal, but it is wrong.
It should not have to take people noticing him and then walking up to him to ask thim to stop.
He should ask first if he is purposely taking pictures of people.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Xioden
said by Xioden:Depending where you are, yes, it is true. Look up rights of privacy/publicity. In many states people's image/likeness/voice/etc. are considered protected, even in public.
For example in New York: "§ 50. Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for
advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait
or picture of any living person without having first obtained the
written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
You better damn well have gotten a release before you decided to use that person's photo, regardless of where it was taken!
Most states do not have anti-paparazzi laws and the NY law you quoted only makes it a misdemeanor for the person using a picture without consent.
Someone making a bunch of money from a picture is not going to care about being charged with a misdemeanor. That is a very, very weak law.
A person would still have to sue civilly to stop the picture or get compensation. That takes a lot of lawyering money to do that.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | said by r81984:said by Xioden:Depending where you are, yes, it is true. Look up rights of privacy/publicity. In many states people's image/likeness/voice/etc. are considered protected, even in public.
For example in New York: "§ 50. Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for
advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait
or picture of any living person without having first obtained the
written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
You better damn well have gotten a release before you decided to use that person's photo, regardless of where it was taken!
Most states do not have anti-paparazzi laws and the NY law you quoted only makes it a misdemeanor for the person using a picture without consent. Someone making a bunch of money from a picture is not going to care about being charged with a misdemeanor. That is a very, very weak law. A person would still have to sue civilly to stop the picture or get compensation. That takes a lot of lawyering money to do that. A misdemeanor in NY can mean up to a year in prison... For not getting permission to use a photo. New York is I believe the only one where it is a criminal offense.
Most other states allow for injunctions and damages. A couple allow for ALL profit stemming from the use of the image to being given to the claimant. |
|
| reply to BoulderHill1
said by BoulderHill1:said by Rob:What ever happened to respecting people? If someone is asking you not to take their pictures, be respectful and don't take their picture.
Why do you have to be an ass about it?
The OP didn't say that he continues to take their picture after they have come up to him and asked him to "stop taking my picture" My assumption from his post is that he in fact stops, but is just ranting about the fact that the subject person first assumes that their picture will NOT be taken at ANY time. From what I gather from the OP's post, he does respect people. Your right. What usually happens is that people are in the way of a business or trademark I am taking a picture of, and they approach me and say, stop taking my picture. Some of the times I take pictures of people in a group, a demonstration, etc. to show emotion and the situation. If someone asks me to stop, I do. But I also tell them that they are in public, and anyone can take a picture of them.
--
No Victim=No Crime |
|
