DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> restrictions on street photography
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/29/2004 06:10:13 PM · #26
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Taking the photo isn't illegal, Goldberry.


Are you sure?


Yes. Taking the photo is not illegal.

In some cases, selling it, trying to profit from the person's image, etc may require their approval. However, taking the picture in public is not illegal.


You are right, Gordon, taking the photo is not illegal, but you are walking a fine line. With all the recent publicity of child abuse etc, it is a very foolish person who ventures forth with a camera near a playground!

bledford, it is not the photo that is the problem and longer, but the purpose for which it is being taken. A male with a camera near children is classed a sex fiend! Our society is over-reacting to recent events, but we, as photographers, must realise that if we put ourselve sin such a position, we invite trouble. The legal side is a minor point when you consider that consequences of such an action...you could be labelled a sex offender and suffer all the results of that one rash action.
 10/29/2004 06:12:45 PM · #27
Originally posted by Formerlee:


You are right, Gordon, taking the photo is not illegal, but you are walking a fine line. With all the recent publicity of child abuse etc, it is a very foolish person who ventures forth with a camera near a playground!


Do you have any actual examples of this, legally, or are you just spreading FUD ?
 10/29/2004 06:17:51 PM · #28
Originally posted by Formerlee:
The legal side is a minor point when you consider that consequences of such an action...you could be labelled a sex offender and suffer all the results of that one rash action.


Okay, just to step in before this gets totally out of control. For background, I was a criminal justice major. So I do know just a bit on the subject.

The sexual offender label will only be attached from a conviction for a sex crime. Taking pictures of children, clothed, in a public place does not qualify.

Clara
 10/29/2004 06:19:04 PM · #29
The "American Way" is that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that there is a long tradition of refusal to exercise "prior restraint."

Especially if we, legitimate photographers, do not demand to exercise our rights, who will? I for one will not "give in" to fear-mongering, and allow our civil rights to be eroded for the sake of making it easier to deal with a few bad apples.

It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778), Zadig

Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind ...
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616)

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 18:20:06.
 10/29/2004 06:19:56 PM · #30
You do not have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. If you are walking down the street, I can photograph you. If you are visible from the street, I can photograph you.

My rights to use that photograph, however, are limited. Generally speaking, if I am going to use the photograph for a "commercial purpose," I need a model release or risk liability to the subject of the photograph.

-Terry
 10/29/2004 06:21:50 PM · #31
Long photo.net discussion about this here
 10/29/2004 06:27:14 PM · #32
Originally posted by Gordon:
Buildings are subject to copyright. Children tend not to be. While you may think it is a fact, it isn't actually true. Also, there is a difference between your rights to take the images and your rights to distribute/ profit from those images.

Re-read my post. I don't think I stated any opinion to suggest that children are copyrighted. I also clearly made a distinction between the taking of the photo versus the distribution and publication of the photo. My point is only that it is a grey area and that there are risks (in America, at least) with taking and distributing, selling, publishing pictures that are perfectly legal when taken.

It is not succumbing to fear to be aware of the risks, it is preparedness. And to clear things up, I think any restrictions on photographers rights to take pictures in public should be heavily scrutinized and avoided if at all possible.
 10/29/2004 06:32:42 PM · #33
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Buildings are subject to copyright. Children tend not to be. While you may think it is a fact, it isn't actually true. Also, there is a difference between your rights to take the images and your rights to distribute/ profit from those images.

Re-read my post. I don't think I stated any opinion to suggest that children are copyrighted. I also clearly made a distinction between the taking of the photo versus the distribution and publication of the photo. My point is only that it is a grey area and that there are risks (in America, at least) with taking and distributing, selling, publishing pictures that are perfectly legal when taken.

It is not succumbing to fear to be aware of the risks, it is preparedness. And to clear things up, I think any restrictions on photographers rights to take pictures in public should be heavily scrutinized and avoided if at all possible.


Okay - to quote you Whether it should be or not, taking pictures of non-released items (not just children or people) is asking for some litigation

Which bit of that am I misunderstanding ?
 10/29/2004 06:36:37 PM · #34
good gravy when will the madness end. I am a father and a grandfather, I understand ones concerns for protecting their children and property, but these law makers better watch what direction they are going with this.

I can get some of these Hidden cameras and could photo ANY thing I wanted with out ANY body around me knowing it.

it would be just like making a law that you cant drive a car drunk. Oh wait there is a law against driving drunk. Well guess what??? people still drive drunk and over 40,000 people a year are killed because of it in the USA alone.

Arrrggggghhhhh!!!!!!

James
 10/29/2004 06:45:25 PM · #35
In the US, then, would a Model Release be necessary (a good idea, sure, but necesseary?) to use a photo shot of an unwitting individual in a public place in a contest such as DPC?

Thanks, Gordon, for the book reference, by the way. I'll be purchasing it. Also, folks, take a look at today's thread, "Individual Photograph Discussion >> Photos from yesterdays Bush Rally".... some candid photos of a cute little girl posted there that are examples of exactly what has been discussed here.

(Edited to clarify referenced discussion thread).

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 23:12:01.
 10/29/2004 06:45:55 PM · #36
Originally posted by Gordon:
Which bit of that am I misunderstanding ?

OK, I'll give you that my first sentence was a bit too broad of a statement. But my point (as a whole) was that using those images that you legally take down the road, can get you into trouble if you don't have the appropriate releases. It's very difficult to go back and try to obtain releases for older photos if you ever decide to license or sell them.

In my, admittedly, limited experience, people on the street don't enjoy having their picture taken. Also, people don't like having their children's picture taken. I think that rather than be so stern about your photographic rights, it's often more useful to ask, obtain releases, and then shoot. Or shoot, then ask and obtain release.

As for images that you don't intend to profit (or design a WMD) from, well "hell yes" you can take all the pictures you want and be as carefree as you like while doing it. All of you who want to take pictures purely for personal enjoyment and no profit, raise your hands.

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 18:47:02.
 10/29/2004 06:48:11 PM · #37
Originally posted by bledford:
All of you who want to take pictures purely for personal enjoyment and no profit, raise your hands.


Consider my hand raised.

But then I'm legally not allowed to profit from it, so ...
 10/29/2004 06:52:51 PM · #38
Originally posted by Gordon:
Consider my hand raised.

But then I'm legally not allowed to profit from it, so ...

Gordon, of all the people on this site who should be considering selling their stuff, you are at the top of the list.

Excuse me while I get out of profit center mode and go take some street photography for me, myself, and I. ;)
 12/18/2004 12:30:18 PM · #39
The NYC transit commission is proposing a rule change that will prohibit Joe Blow photo enthusiast from taking any photo in the subway system. You have until midJanuary 2005 to let them know of your outrage.

Check out proposed rule 1040.4

I quote:

"Section 1040.4
In order to further enhance passenger security and safety, photography and videorecording is prohibited except for members of the press holding valid identification cards issued by the New York City Police Department or where written authorization has been provided by SIRTOA. [Section 1040.4(f)]"

The terrorists have won! When I was in Tunisia last month we were told we could not take photos of many places and buildings, Tunisia is a dictorship, so I understod that. The USA is turning into a police state... sad day...

12/18/2004 12:32:48 PM · #40
If you intend to write the MTA about this issue (which I personally think is a good idea), please bear in mind that a respectful and carefully worded businesslike letter carries far more weight than a hastily written angry email.

-Terry
 12/18/2004 12:40:39 PM · #41
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Are you sure? I'm not trying to be facetious, but do you have formal training in law?


I do. It's not illegal to capture the image on your camera. It MAY be a violation of copyright law to sell it for money.

M
 12/18/2004 01:04:49 PM · #42
I understand everyone's frustration, Recently in Toronto a man was detained for taking a pic of the C.N. Tower. A major landmark! the man was of Middle Eastern birth. I myself have never been arrested for taking a picture of it.
I wonder if how you conduct yourself while taking pictures has more to do with it than your nationality?
 12/18/2004 01:36:10 PM · #43
Forget about the law.

In certain countries you might get killed.

Read this story on CNN to get a better understanding:

Mob burns law enforcers to death.
 12/18/2004 01:40:17 PM · #44
I'm suprised none of us was arrested during the course of the landmark challenge, actually. As to the rest of this thread: it's another symptom of the massive pver-reactions of our times, I'm afraid. The more people keep saying 'well, what did you expect' the more of this kind of abuse by the authorities will continue, and then all of a sudden there'll be some laws that really restrict all our rights.

Ed
 12/27/2005 01:26:42 PM · #45
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The "American Way" is that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that there is a long tradition of refusal to exercise "prior restraint."

Especially if we, legitimate photographers, do not demand to exercise our rights, who will? I for one will not "give in" to fear-mongering, and allow our civil rights to be eroded for the sake of making it easier to deal with a few bad apples.


I hear that! The next dpc challenges should be "playgrounds" and "military bases"
 12/27/2005 01:41:13 PM · #46
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
you could be selling it for an ad campaign making yourself some pretty coin.


VERY hard to do w/o a model release... damn near impossible. So, that as a motive isn't likely. Street photography is more art than money IMHO.

I'm not gonna weigh in on the censorship issues of the original post, because this isn't my style of photography and I have no kids, so my points on either side would be w/o merit. I will be reading along though.
 12/27/2005 01:44:36 PM · #47
I think it is fairly obvious that something like .005 percent of the population are child molesters who will take extensive photgraphs of their intended victims before they strike. Prudence would dictate that all photography of children ought to be limited exclusevly to the parents of said child. No one should photgraph orphans, as they are a greater risk of molestation.
In a related tangent .74 percent of men who drive pickups with gun racks will beat their wives within one week of the superbowl. It only seems logical that if we take away their trucks they will not beat their wives.
Thank you for your time on this urgent matter,
John Smallberries, Ma Phd Wtf
New School for Social Reaserch
 12/27/2005 02:10:38 PM · #48
A mother at a playground has no more right to ask me to leave than I do her. Why is it the photographer is expected to leave? If you don't want to be photographed or your kids photographed in a public place you have the right to leave.

Presumably both the photographer and the family are there for enjoyment, why is it the parent's enjoyment automatically over rules the photographer's enjoyment.

I get tired of hearing about rights. There are 2 people in the situation and both have rights and generally it's the PHOTOGRAPHER'S that are violated.
 12/27/2005 02:31:35 PM · #49
Originally posted by megatherian:
A mother at a playground has no more right to ask me to leave than I do her. Why is it the photographer is expected to leave? If you don't want to be photographed or your kids photographed in a public place you have the right to leave.

Presumably both the photographer and the family are there for enjoyment, why is it the parent's enjoyment automatically over rules the photographer's enjoyment.

I get tired of hearing about rights. There are 2 people in the situation and both have rights and generally it's the PHOTOGRAPHER'S that are violated.

You make a very good point here! We all go out, and we had better learn to accept that we all have the right to be out in public, doing legal things. Playing in a park is legal, taking photos is legal, and one should not be able to override the other. Like megatherian said, if you don't like being in the photos, you have the right to leave. You don't have the right to make me leave, although you can ask, if it will make you feel better. And I can say yes or no. IMO, a little more politeness would go a long way all around. So would more common sense.
 12/27/2005 02:38:03 PM · #50
Originally posted by e301:
I'm suprised none of us was arrested during the course of the landmark challenge, actually. As to the rest of this thread: it's another symptom of the massive pver-reactions of our times, I'm afraid. The more people keep saying 'well, what did you expect' the more of this kind of abuse by the authorities will continue, and then all of a sudden there'll be some laws that really restrict all our rights.

Ed


I didn't get arrested but was questioned and they looked through all my photos in my camera. I was downtown Ft.Worth Texas about 10pm taking shots for the night challenge. I saw the cops coming towards me but never expected what happened. They talked to be for a while about what I was taking picture of and why? It's sad that things have gotten so bad that they have to watch people so closely.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:11:09 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:11:09 PM EDT.