Download Our Windows 7 Tips!
Should you ask before shooting? A photographer's dilemma.
I recently attended a photographer's rights talk in Seattle because we had some ridiculous incidents take place where a woman was asked to leave by police when she was shooting power lines and a man was asked to leave because he needed permission to take pictures of the public as he was on government property (city hall).
Generally (don't quote me but this was what I learnt from the talk), you have all the right to take pictures in public spaces EXCEPT for nuclear plants and military establishments. Also, for insurance's sake, you will need permits to shoot for profit in parks (say, wedding photos) so you or your clients can't sue the city if you get hurt frolicking in the park.
What's also interesting is that you CAN take pictures of the police or anyone in public service because technically, they work for you, the public.
What about people walking around who aren't in public service? Can you, technically, take a picture of someone's child (putting aside issues of intellectual property) at a playground?
After the talk, there was a heated discussion about a photographer's rights (specifically a street photographer or photojournalist, not necessarily someone with a press pass) when it comes to taking pictures of people in public places. Photojournalists with press passes have no problem with this, but how about freelance photographers and those who wish to document things like protests and poverty or the homeless for a book or for their own use at home?
What do YOU, as the person protesting or homeless person or the parent of a child who's being photographed by a stranger, think?
A few photographers in the room argued that it was their right to make a living off their craft (typically if you use an image for private or editorial purpose - and not sell it as stock, for example - you don't need a model release). However, in an increasingly insecure world, the issue seems to have lost its clarity.
There was also the argument of remaining true to the craft of photojournaling by NOT asking for permission. One of the panel speakers said, "when push comes to shove, lie. It's better to say, "No, I wasn't shooting you, I was shooting the building behind you!" if it would avoid a long debate.
I had problems with that. Long time author and photographer Bryan Peterson wrote that it is better NOT to have taken the shot than to have taken it surreptitiously for voyeuring is not only a tricky approach, it is also unnecessary.
Yet, the no.1 rule for a street photographer is to remain invisible, to blend with your surroundings. This also means you can't ask someone if it's ok to photograph him or his child.
What do YOU think?
Generally (don't quote me but this was what I learnt from the talk), you have all the right to take pictures in public spaces EXCEPT for nuclear plants and military establishments. Also, for insurance's sake, you will need permits to shoot for profit in parks (say, wedding photos) so you or your clients can't sue the city if you get hurt frolicking in the park.
What's also interesting is that you CAN take pictures of the police or anyone in public service because technically, they work for you, the public.
What about people walking around who aren't in public service? Can you, technically, take a picture of someone's child (putting aside issues of intellectual property) at a playground?
After the talk, there was a heated discussion about a photographer's rights (specifically a street photographer or photojournalist, not necessarily someone with a press pass) when it comes to taking pictures of people in public places. Photojournalists with press passes have no problem with this, but how about freelance photographers and those who wish to document things like protests and poverty or the homeless for a book or for their own use at home?
What do YOU, as the person protesting or homeless person or the parent of a child who's being photographed by a stranger, think?
A few photographers in the room argued that it was their right to make a living off their craft (typically if you use an image for private or editorial purpose - and not sell it as stock, for example - you don't need a model release). However, in an increasingly insecure world, the issue seems to have lost its clarity.
There was also the argument of remaining true to the craft of photojournaling by NOT asking for permission. One of the panel speakers said, "when push comes to shove, lie. It's better to say, "No, I wasn't shooting you, I was shooting the building behind you!" if it would avoid a long debate.
I had problems with that. Long time author and photographer Bryan Peterson wrote that it is better NOT to have taken the shot than to have taken it surreptitiously for voyeuring is not only a tricky approach, it is also unnecessary.
Yet, the no.1 rule for a street photographer is to remain invisible, to blend with your surroundings. This also means you can't ask someone if it's ok to photograph him or his child.
What do YOU think?
Tags: photographer's rights, photography, shutter geeks
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony Citrano on -
I also posted this on FriendFeed, but - I ask.. there are a few exceptions but if someone is the main subject of my shots, I ask. I know I don't have to, but I do. It just feels like the right thing to do. Maybe I'll get over it... I realize it seems old-fashioned, but I think it's somehow connected to the kinda old, voodoesque idea that photographers take pictures not make them.
There is massive amounts of confusion about this issue among photographers and police alike. You do not need permission to photograph ANYTHING that is in public view. ANYTHING. Children, buildings, power lines, hot chicks, cops, regular humans - it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if you're a press photographer or just some pervert with a camera. Legally speaking you are well within your rights doing so. That does not mean it's always morally right and that does not mean some cop is not going to try to bust you. I have lived it.
On that note, I have a similar story from last year that is related to the Seattle "power lines" BS:
http://www.cosmictap.com/an-accidental-interview-with-lieutenant-ph...
I agree with you that you should not lie to people. But that's a bigger issue. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Tai on -
This is definitely a 21st century challenge. With the advent of more affordable, accessible gear, you get perhaps a ratio of 1: 4 people holding a camera, perhaps 1: 6 of them have telephoto lenses that's shooting someone from 10 feet away. If you see something poignant, do you resist shooting? If you fail to resist, do you then go to the person and say, "I just photographed you. I hope it's ok"?. I don't think many photographers have the guts or the integrity to do that. They will just shoot and run.
-
Permalink Reply by Loke Uei on -
better to not ask and ignore their glaring stares at you as you walk away. that said, if taking pictures of the police or military in a riot, you make sure you have a super telephoto lens before you shoot.
-
Permalink Reply by jem on -
some photographers say that photos tend to come out best if you shoot at your subjects when they're least aware of it.. but i don't even have the guts to come up front and just shoot... maybe it is better to have telephoto lens.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Vining on -
Well this is a tuffy. While as a photographer I feel as though the 1st Amendment is just for me, I understand there are situations where one would want to cover their bases before shooting. I remember once when I was in high school shooting a football game, a girl got hurt in the stands (she fell or something). There was a big brew-ha-ha about it. They even stopped the game for it. I ran over to check it out (at the time I had a video camera). As I am filming the scene, I get yanked away by some teachers that were not happy at all that I was filming "the girl in distress." After all was said and done, not only did they force me to delete the footage, as a result I lost all the other game footage on the tape. That happened about eight or nine years ago and I still use it to decide if I need to think twice about shooting something.
-
Permalink Reply by usrbingeek on -
I'm a full time professional photographer and I've discussed this issue at length with several lawyers, a few of which are photographers, and one of which is an expert on privacy laws.
In the US, in all most all states, it is fully within your rights for you take pictures of anything in the public view from public areas, such as a street or sidewalk. You cannot legally take photographs of military installations, power plants, federal buildings, and many airports.
However, you should not take pictures of any person where THEY have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This means, never photograph someone inside their own fenced yard or in their home through a window from outside (even if it's their huge "fish bowl" front window) without their prior permission. Obviously bathrooms are off limits. But even some public places can be dicy. Recently a photographer found themselves in trouble just for photographing people in a pharmacy and a judge ruled the people he photographed had an expectation of privacy there. Additionally, some states and a few cities have more tight restrictions dealing with the expectation of privacy even in some public places so it's important to consult a lawyer in your state if you have any doubts. Hospitals, religious schools, places of worship and some clubs can be grey areas.
"Rent-a-cops" are always harassing photographers and making BS claims. In most cases all they can do legally is have you warned for trespassing if you are on private property. (If you should refuse to leave someplace after a real law enforcement officer tells you to, you could be arrested.) However, if you're photographing a building from a public sidewalk or street you are well within your rights to photograph it no matter what they claim. Though, publishing those photos commercially might be another story as logos, ads, and other copyrighted works in the photos might prevent commercial use.
Keeping the above in mind, I always take the attitude of: Shoot pics and ask questions or permission later. If you ask first you're often told no. But once you have the pics it's been my experience getting permission to use the pics afterward is much easier, especially once they see the pics, fallen in love with them, and want copies for themselves!
Another piece of advice to other photographers is to never argue with a real law enforcement officer if one says you can't take photographs of something. Even if it turns out that you're right, and they are wrong, you're likely to land yourself in jail at least overnight for arguing with them. They can and will find a reason to lock up anyone they don't like -- be respectful, polite, and cooperative. To avoid trouble, politely comply with their orders but note their name and badge number so you can file a complaint afterwards. I wouldn't agree to a search or hand over my camera or memory cards without a search warrant. Again, you have to be polite when declining these requests. Don't psychically resist them if they try to psychically take anything as a resisting charge is likely to be used. Simply saying something like, "I decline a search without a search warrant" while allowing them to psychically take your gear is enough to make their search illegal.
Disclaimer: The contents of this post are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. I am not a lawyer, so I do not give legal advice. If you should have any questions please consult a licensed attorney.
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Tai on
-
Hehe reminded me of what one of the panelists said during the talk I attended, how the names of the riot police officers at a protest she was shooting, were embroidered in black on black so she had to go up close to take note. On purpose?
Sign in
Geek Out!
More Information
Pirillo's Posts
Loading feed
Lockergnome
Loading feed
© 2009 Created by Chris Pirillo
