Street Photography question

Hi, a quick question. What percentage of the time do you ask people for their

permission to photograph them, and if you do not do you still put them on the

internet?

 

Thanks

In my limited current street photography individuals aren't recognizable, so my percentage is 0%, and if the photo is worthy, I have no qualms about putting it on the web. However about 90% of what I see on the web purporting to be street photography, IMHO is nothing but snapshots which could be taken by an 8 year old kid...no thought as to subject interest, composition, focus or originality. The other 10% is very impressive.

.

 

Hi Helen, phoho.net friends and mentors,

 

0% and 100%.

 

0% ask, 100% post to the internet.

 

Do you really want to know more, or something else, or is that it?

 

Ask a writer's group - do you ask permision to write about someone, and if you don't, do you still share what you wrote?

 

Why is photography such a pansy-ass art where we have to ask everybody's permission to be creative and take some pictures?

 

Songwriters - do you ask permision to write about someone, and if you don't, do you still share what you wrote?

 

Painters - do you ask permision to paint about someone, and if you don't, do you still share what you painted?

 

Geesh!

 

The subject of our photography has no rights in our photography that are superior to our own rights in our own photography, ESPECIALLY our public photography.

 

See

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H6SZ

 

... for a current public photography discussion.

 

Maybe you're asking a

 

"candid/unaware versus posed/aware"

 

subject question, not a

 

"permission"

 

question, per se?

 

Tell us more, and please share some pictures!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photography is Free Speech http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

(don't get me started!)

"Why is photography such a pansy-ass art where we have to ask everybody's permission to be creative and take some pictures?"

 

I think there are a couple of issues to consider regarding street photography:

 

1. We could get our pansy-asses sued if we use the photos imporperly (that doesn't mean the plantiff will win, but it would be costly).

 

2. We could get our pansy-asses beaten to a pulp, or worse, if our subject is of an extremely hostile nature. I was once correctly advised not to do street photography if I wasn't willing to get "punched-out." I take that warning seriously!

 

3. There is an ethical issue of "invasion of privacy," which each of us must decide for ourselves.

 

Those are my thoughts on this.

<p>Live safely, don't take pictures! Taking pictures is one of the most dangerous activities I know: high risk of trials, injuries...etc...</p>

Stay home and watch TV.

I generally don't ask because it's informal photographs taken in public places or from a

public place such as people in an outdoor restaurant, where it's legal. I only ask if I see

someone I want to focus on for some impromptu portraits, and I'll hand them my card as a

followup if they agree, and not, I just thank them and walk on. I just got my computer and

Web site up, so people, street, or event photographs aren't up yet, but they will be eventually

because it's legal since it's not for commercial purposes and I won't sell prints of people.

Good luck with your photography.

Peter Blaise and Todd Frederick made the point: It should be normal to take street photography, but it's dangerous since some people would beat you up for being there and pressing a button.

Street photography is not "invasion of privacy". You intrude into people's house to take a shot, this is invasion of privacy.

In cities there are video cameras everywhere and nobody seems to care. People get angry at the photographers for absolutely no reason.

NO REASON means they don't even know why they are angry.

Your question implies that if I don't ask I did something that I should be hiding. I have the right to take pics of people in public places. Anything else is "opinions".

Scott wrote:

 

<< ... it's legal since it's not for commercial purposes and I won't sell prints of people ... >>

 

Two different concepts there.

 

"Commercial purposes" typically refers to photos "for advertising purposes or for trade." Taking street photos of people as art, and selling them as art, has to this point been excluded from the "commercial purposes" your post addresses.

 

I'm not pushing you to sell the street shots, of course. And in any case, it always makes sense to consult a lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction and has experience in the particular subject matter before reaching a decision about which you have questions.

 

But your comment might've led people to confuse the two concepts, which up to this point have for the most part been distinct.

True, James K, but your answer was incomplete.

 

Full answer would be:

 

None.

 

Yes.

Same answer here, incidentally.

 

But with some exceptions, I tend not to post family/close friend photos on the internet.

weeeelllllll......to make my post clear........heh.......none/yes

....and, to expand on your question, my previous answer just above of none/yes is for the "first" picture I take. The second picture I might actually ask about 5% of the time.....if I think they won't "pose" out of character.

Just take the pictures. When I do ask, usually it's embarassing, and the results are shitty.

Approximately zero. Yes.

Candids: 0%<BR>

Posed: 100% (unless I have them in handcuffs)<BR>

Internet: Yes on both

nil, all except those of irate middle-aged female attorneys.

Never.

what for ?

by asking you might miss the moment.

k

<i>"What percentage of the time do you ask people for their permission to photograph them, and if you do not do you still put them on the internet?"</i><br><br>

Who cares? It's the brand of camera you use that counts.

You can get sued if you write about someone as well. You can get sued for just about anything.

 

My answer: about 1% and I should stop doing that because the resulting pics from asking usually blow.

 

the second answer: 99% I took pics where I would feel uncomfortable to post on the internet and some pics where the discomfort is slightly less - those I just posted here for a quickie and don't leave them visible in my portfolio.

Thanks for the replies everyone, food for thought. Interesting though, judging from the replies and the critique forum not too many females appear to be doing street photography (unless they are all using an alias)- maybe it is an attitude thing or a safety thing.

With respect to:

 

> Two different concepts there.

 

> "Commercial purposes" typically refers to photos "for advertising purposes or for trade."

> Taking street photos of people as art, and selling them as art, has to this point been

> excluded from the "commercial purposes" your post addresses.

 

I agree to a point. General street scenes are ok along with individuals in an environment

where it's expected to be public, such as a festival, parade, concerts, etc. If, however, the

photograph constitutes a portrait outside that environment, then it's a question if it's

constitutes commercial use for personal (financial) gain and a release and compensation is

required. It's free to display the photograph but I'm not sure you can sell images. It's not

"art" anymore but a portrait. It's the fuzzy area of photographer's rights and use of a

person's image because you're advertising your business. It depends on the use and

context of the photograph, and I'd rather error on the side of caution.

<i><blockquote> We could get our pansy-asses beaten to a pulp

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Prove it.

Scott - I understood the question above to refer to street photography, and in any case intended to limit my answer to photographs in (i)public places where (ii)there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. <p>

 

With those limitations in mind, the general rule to this point in the U.S. has been that you can take them, you can publish them, and you can sell them as art -- all without permission and without a release.<p>

 

What you cannot do without a release, just by way of example, is take a street photo of a person using a Motorola cell phone and then put that person's photo in a Motorola cell phone advertisement. That is for commercial purposes or for trade. <p>

 

You must also be mindful of "false light" concerns. For example, a published photo of a recognizeable person on a public street at night, accompanied by the caption "Police declare neighborhood is drug-infested," could subject the publication to a defamation action under a "false light" theory, since the implication is that the person photographed is part of the illegal drug trade. <p>

 

Public place photography as 'art' is different, even if the photographer plans to make money selling the photo. For one recent discussion of the priciples, take a look at the Court's opinion in the case of <a href=http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50171.htm>Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia</a>, decided by a trial judge in New York this spring. This dealt with a claim brought under New York law, but had significant First Amendment implications. <p>

 

The photo in question in that case could certainly be called a street portrait. See the <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html?ex=1300424400&en=f7e05d1e10cf9b14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>New York Times article</a>. <p>

 

Of course, to address a particular legal concern, the only smart thing to do is to consult a lawyer in the juridiction at issue who has experience/expertise in the field.