a question of privacy

[Chantelle4u]

if you are in a public place, say walking down the street can people take pictures of you without your consent?

 

[danmand]

if you are in a public place, say walking down the street can people take pictures of you without your consent?

I think it depends on if they a specifically taking a picture of you.

 

[Joey Tribbiani]

My understanding by "word of mouth" is if the picture is to be displayed in any public forum (be it internet, television, poster, newspaper, etc.), then they would have to get you to sign somesort of release/consent form.


Joey T

 

[Chantelle4u]

what if there is no public display ( that i know of). you just happen to see someone taking pictures of people as they walk down the street or something

 

[Bill the Pirate]

why do you ask... have you been walking down the street naked again?

 

[Chantelle4u]

you wish

 

[Bill the Pirate]

yes as a matter of fact, I do

 

[elmo]

me too

 

[moviefan]

In some circumstances, yes, but in general a resounding NO. You have every right to demand they delete the picture of you.

They have to prove to you that they had the right (e.g. media taking pictures of an event and you're in the "crowd" etc., and even then there are rules)

I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this information is correct. In fact, I think the opposite is true.

If you are in a "public" place, it is presumed to be open to the public, and there is usually no expected right to privacy.

While a person might get into trouble if shooting pictures for a commerical purpose, I think that is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I believe a person taking pictures in a public place for their own use is probably OK (assuming the photos aren't perverted, ie, arranging to get shots looking up a woman's skirt). In most cases, the photographer probably doesn't need the consent of the people in the public space who might show up in his/her pictures.

 

[a 1 player]

I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this information is correct. In fact, I think the opposite is true.

If you are in a "public" place, it is presumed to be open to the public, and there is usually no expected right to privacy.

While a person might get into trouble if shooting pictures for a commerical purpose, I think that is the exception rather than the rule. In general, I believe a person taking pictures in a public place for their own use is probably OK (assuming the photos aren't perverted, ie, arranging to get shots looking up a woman's skirt). In most cases, the photographer probably doesn't need the consent of the people in the public space who might show up in his/her pictures.

I might be wrong, but this sounds logical to me. If the reverse were the case, anyone could tell you to delete your photos that you took almost anywhere (if there were another person in them), ie. zoo, museum, etc. This does not sound rational to me.

 

[BuffNaked]

In some circumstances, yes, but in general a resounding NO. You have every right to demand they delete the picture of you.

They have to prove to you that they had the right (e.g. media taking pictures of an event and you're in the "crowd" etc., and even then there are rules)

I'm going to play devils advocate.

I'm not seeing the right to demand me to delete a picture you in the charter. Furthermore what charges would be brought against me if I took a picture and refused to delete it?

 

[osanowo]

Your rights to take photographs in public places

Wired Magazine published a short article regarding privacy concerns and your rights as an amateur photographer, titled Stalker or Shutterbug. Its a helpful article that explains some tricky situations, but generally speaking within the United States you are pretty much free to take a picture of any place that is viewable from a public space, whether the subject be a person, a home, a building, an event, or any other public scene.

Though a commercial use of this photo is much different; let's say you publish it on the web or in a magazine, you need the approval.

 

[Moraff]

But there must be some exceptions to this? The celeb mags always have shots of famous people in less-than flattering circumstances. I can't imagine that permission was sought and obtained before these were published. Or is it just that the magazines think the sales income outweighs the potential lawsuits?

 

[PussyHunter]

As a photographer I can tell you that I have faced this exact same issue. The law is that as long as it is a public place you have no expectation of privacy.

I've had parents confront me at sports events telling me I can't take pictures. These are public parks. I take pics of my kids playing sports but occasionally I will shoot for specific items. The one in particular I was trying to get was shots of a soccer ball being kicked as well as a set of the goalies hands making a catch. I informed the parent what the law was and also showed them a couple of the shots I had taken.

It's funny how fast they turn around and then want you to take a couple of pics of their kids for them.

On the other hand...
If I am on private property such as a mall I must obtain permission of the mall management to shoot within it. Then the same rules apply to anyone in the mall.

The images can then be used for whatever purpose I sell them for.

One public thing you can't do is.....
If I am standing on the street taking photos through your front window then that is illegal (even if you were standing naked at it ... I wish Chantelle)

To be safe however if I'm looking for stuff to sell I will try to get a signed release from my main subject if their face is recognizable.

One other thing, if I shoot a scene outdoors and I have a famous building in the shot the same rules apply about privacy for the building owners. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy so we are free to shoot the architecture as we see fit.

Hope that helps

 

[tboy]

PH is bang on....I even remember studying this when I took photography at Ryerson.

The "candid" shots of stars etc can be done with as the photographer wishes as long as they are in public. Do you think for 1 second that there'd be as many paparazzi if they COULDN'T use the shots?

BTW: get used to being caught on camera. There are more and more security cameras around Toronto these days and I think the average that a person was caught on camera was 20 times? In Britain where they have gone ballistic with security cameras (I think the count was 1 camera per 25 people) you're caught on camera 250 times a day.

Now if somebody has a shoe cam or is attempting to take upskirt pics, that IS an invasion of privacy and many are caught and convicted doing this.

 

[oldjones]

What you want to check is the 1998 Aubrey decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. A girl sitting on a stair case on Québec was photographed in a street scene; the foto was later published in an arts mag. She sued, and she won all the way. The Court distinguished between a picture one happens to be in—say a crowd at a game, a mob at a demo—where the subject is the event, not you: no right to privacy there, and a picture taken of you where your actions were ordinary and subject to ordinary privacy rules like: my business and my pic are my own, so ask first.

As the guy who wrote the piece in Marketing put it:

"In definitive language from the highest court in the country, we now know two important points that will affect all readers of this magazine at one time or another. First, one does not need consent from those photographed in crowd scenes, or from those who because of their position, professional duties or due to some unique circumstance are brought into the public arena. Second, one may well require consent to publish the photo of anyone else."

'Course all that's about publishing fotos, not really about taking them in the first place. But these days, on the net, anyone can be a publisher—and get sued. But if you're never, ever gonna publish, and they're just for you, the basic rule is: Never take a pic of anyone bigger or meaner than you w/o permission.

 

[tboy]

Good detective work Mr Jones. I am wondering however what caused the ridicule that the subject was put through? I mean, if you're just sitting on some steps, that's no reason for anyone to say anything. But if say her undies were showing, or she had a humongous cameltoe happening, I could see that.

I also find it strange that anyone reading an arts mag would ridicule someone who appears in it? I should think they'd be flattered that they're featured in an art mag.

Anyhow, the supreme court's ruling is about as clear as mud and I would bet that someone, sometime will challenge it.

 

[oldjones]

Yup, mud's the woid.

 

[tboy]

Yup, mud's the woid.

LOL@OJ......

 

[Papi Chulo]

There is no such thing as privacy in a public place