Public Domain issues?

I haven't posted here for a long time but I figured folks here might have some insight into a current mild dilemma.

I'm an amateur photographer and I don't usually shoot public events much. But today I went out to the City Park to document the March for our Lives event in my small town. I got some fun shots of the passionate students carrying signs and giving speeches and such and a couple of videos of the parade marching down Main St. And I posted some select photos and videos on FB. Mostly I got a very positive response thanking me for documenting this important event, but one neighbor and FB friend said "Hi Steve -- just a quick reminder -- some folks (me for instance) would prefer not to be filmed or photographed and posted on FaceBook. Thanks"

This seems to me to be within the public domain where "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy." As I'm an amateur and not using the video she commented on in any commercial way I know I don't need a release and I'm not worried about legal issues.

What I'm trying to figure out is how I should respond, if at all. My first reaction was to just not respond in any way, she said her piece and I respect her for her wishes even if she is being ridiculous. It was a parade on Main St. for Pete's sake and I've watched the video several times now and cannot find her. If she's in that video it's very hard to find.

So, my question is does anyone here have some language that they've used successfully in informing my neighbor that she doesn't have any right to privacy in the public domain without offending her and potentially losing a friend. I'm looking for language.

Ultimately I'll probably just not respond at all. And after a bit I'll probably quietly un-friend her in the hope that I won't accidentally offend her in the future. She's a nice but very quiet and private person.

What I'm trying to figure out is how I should respond, if at all.

That's, of course, entirely up to you. You are well within your legal rights and, IMO, well within your moral rights to have taken and to post the photos. As you say, it's a parade down Main Street, for heaven's sake. Nevertheless, your neighbor expressed her feelings. The way I'd react is that if there were a photo where she was prominently featured, I'd offer to take it down, just out of respect for a neighbor who was bothered by it. Whether she has a "right" to be bothered wouldn't be the issue for me. It would be whether I wanted to make the gesture to her, since her feelings were obviously strong (and hopefully genuine) enough for her to have brought it up.

 

You could explain all that to her, but I probably wouldn't bother, unless she were family or a closer friend. If you really can't find her in your photos, you could either not respond or respond by telling her if you could find her, you'd take that photo down, but you're just not seeing her in any of your photos or footage.

 

Look at it this way. Today was hopefully about bringing people together in a cause of peace, civility, and non-violence. Why not make this gesture in that kind of positive spirit?

 

Of course, if you feel it would undermine you personally to do so, then obviously don't do it. But it probably wouldn't . . . my guess.

Pretty much agree with Fred's suggestion and, moreover, his rationale.

 

Simple solution in this particular case is to delete the picture(s) from the facebook page.

 

Would I respond to her FB message - no: primarily because I don't have a facebook account, secondarily, if I did have a FB account I don't think it necessary to respond.

 

I liken this to a person asking to us remove an incidental picture of themselves (in a public setting) that we might have featured at our website - happened twice I think - just pull the picture, simple and good customer relations - doesn't matter who is "in the right" or "has rights" - incidental pictures are neither worth the worry nor the argument .

 

WW

I don't see any legality issues being raised by the neighbor. She just says she (and probably others) would prefer it if you didn't post her photo on Facebook. I can understand that. In this day and age many people do not like themselves to be exposed on line where total strangers and perhaps sickos could see them.

Having photographed many public events I've occasionally run into someone who doesn't want a photo published or even taken. Fair enough and I usually try to accommodate unless they are just rude and in my face. Still with a camera on every phone and stills and video being made constantly I think if someone doesn't want to be recorded they simply need to stay home.

 

Rick H.

Don't confuse "public domain" with the rights (or not) to use.

 

The general rule in terms of people or things in the public arena is that commercial use is not allowed without a consent.

 

Simple politeness may trump your rights, if you are sensitive.

Thanks all, if I could find her in the video it would be different but there are no pictures of her and I've watched the video several times and can't find her there either. I'm going to just let it go. I would gladly remove any photo of her just because it bothers her.

If she does not want to be seen she should stay at home and not be on Facebook.

A private individual with a Facebook account? </snark>

 

Listening to today's news reports on Zuckerberg's apology for Facebook's "breach of trust", I wonder why he doesn't just admit that data mining, including facial recognition and cross linking individuals, their race, ethnicity, politics, travel, hobbies, income, education, buying habits, etc., with subsequent sale of data to 3rd parties, is the basic Facebook business model. We are now shocked to learn that one of those 3rd parties was a campaign consultant of an unpopular politician. Facebook is free to the subscriber and, IMHO, signing up for an account acquiesces privacy.

 

Some folks are rightfully concerned about public exposure on Facebook. Facebook is a poor man's website that perniciously destroys privacy. Be courteous and honor requests to remove images from Facebook.

A private individual with a Facebook account?

Yes, I believe so. Of course, it's naive for one to think they have privacy in today's world, at least if one participates in any number of activities, such as using a credit card, a gps system of any kind, or social media. But that doesn't mean, even among those who participate in such things, there aren't varying degrees of private people. For instance, I'm NOT a Facebook user and I wouldn't care terribly much if my image was on the front page of a newspaper for being at yesterday's March for our Lives rally. As a matter of fact, I'd be proud of it. Others would cringe. We all know people who are more and less private all of whom use Facebook. One of the worst things society can do, and we seem to be doing it more and more, is to see only in black and white. Shades of gray and varying points on a spectrum matter. So, yes, one can be a private person with a Facebook account, as long as "private" isn't understood as some sort of idealistic absolute.

People who don't want their pictures taken in public should stay home. She can control you, but how will she control the 5000 other people who were there? If the picture of her were one obvious one, I'd remove it to be polite. If she's complaining she's in a crowd shot. . . . she should have stayed home. Everyone here should feel pretty strongly about this: our right to photograph in public are under assault from all sorts of directions. Give in, and you lose that right.

Everyone here should feel pretty strongly about this: our right to photograph in public are under assault from all sorts of directions. Give in, and you lose that right.

I feel strongly but in the opposite direction. First off, I don't feel my right to photograph in public is under assault because I do it all the time with no negative consequences. Second of all, I don't really care to exercise my right to photograph someone in public if they don't want to be photographed, even as I recognize I have that right. The exceptions would be someone committing a crime or other case where my need to photograph them might outweigh their desire not to be photographed. (Those cases, for me, would be rare.)

 

Everyone's a victim. I guess photographers need a reason to see themselves this way as well. I reserve my empathy and concern for those out there who are real victims of all kinds of real and horrible things. Photographers would be quite a ways down on my list!

. . . Everyone's a victim. I guess [some] photographers need a reason to see themselves this way as well. . .

 

One is only a victim, if one perceives it to be so: (Anthony Hopkin's as) Ethan Powell in "Instinct".

WW

there is no expected right to privacy when in public.... thats the law.

 

you would be surprised how many people think you have no right to take their picture.... as said above... if you dont want your picture taken in public, stay home!

 

btw im assuming you are in the USA. i wish PN would put locations under your avitar so we have a better idea who we are talking to.

btw im assuming you are in the USA. i wish PN would put locations under your avitar so we have a better idea who we are talking to.

 

Yes, I'm in the US. I messaged her to say that if she could find herself in any of my photos/videos then I would gladly remove them. I did this out of simple courtesy, not because I think she has any right to tell me not to post photos made in the public sphere and without commercial intent. She hasn't responded and I suspect that she's just being paranoid or contrarian. I cannot find her in any of the photos/videos. Basically I think she's just whacko but she is entitled to her opinion and I gain nothing by insisting that I'm in the right. I don't think I'll hear from her again and after a little time has passed I'll simply unfriend her. I really don't like conflict of any sort, especially when there's nothing to be gained by it.

btw im assuming you are in the USA. i wish PN would put locations under your avitar so we have a better idea who we are talking to.

 

Yes, I'm in the US. I messaged her to say that if she could find herself in any of my photos/videos then I would gladly remove them. I did this out of simple courtesy, not because I think she has any right to tell me not to post photos made in the public sphere and without commercial intent. She hasn't responded and I suspect that she's just being paranoid or contrarian. I cannot find her in any of the photos/videos. Basically I think she's just whacko but she is entitled to her opinion and I gain nothing by insisting that I'm in the right. I don't think I'll hear from her again and after a little time has passed I'll simply unfriend her. I really don't like conflict of any sort, especially when there's nothing to be gained by it.

You handled it perfectly in my opinion!

I have a few of these printed up and in my bag. For in USA LINK,

Do a web search for photographer's rights and you will find a lot of links.

LINK

 

LINK

Posting images online in social media. LINK

Different countries have different laws. It is a good idea to know the laws in the country you are doing photography in.

I am mentioning this because PN is used by photographers internationally.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Mark Keefer

What's legal and what's polite aren't always the same. I've had people tag me in photos that have ended up on Facebook and I don't particularly like it. I understand the taggers don't see the harm and I don't raise a fuss over it, but frankly given what we know about Facebook, I'd prefer not to hand them more information about me, where I was at, who I was with, etc.

 

And before anyone calls your neighbor a whacko, they should educate themselves on what happens to all the information about you and your friends that Facebook collects. If we were all a little more "whacko" and a little less trusting to organizations like Facebook, we'd be a lot better off.

 

Look, there might be several other videos and pictures of her taken at that event that someone else posted on Facebook. She can't stop it. But what she did do is help start this discussion. I'd suggest that people re-think posting content on Facebook. It's not just your personal information that gets shared. It's your friends' too. I realize that there other social media sites that are as bad or even worse but having traffic volumes tank on Facebook would send a strong message to them and everybody else that people actually care, because if we don't act like we do, it won't stop.

Edited March 26, 2018 by tomspielman

Excellent points.

 

I agree 100%.... but just to ease the photographer of his rights... its always good to know the boundaries of the law when people start yelling at you.

 

BUT in this case, its very understandable and I sometimes feel the same way.

If someone doesn't want their photo taken, just move on. There is always another photo op. The possible exception is events to which people buy tickets. They have, in effect, temporarily surrendered some of their civil liberties. You can be searched, have your property searched, wanded, electronically surveilled, and photographed. Just read the back of the ticket.

What's legal and what's polite aren't always the same.

 

I agree, if someone doesn't want their photo taken or posted, just move on. But if it is a parade or news event or they are hanging out at a tourist attraction, it fair game.

Try getting a shot of Time Square without people in the shot. :eek: You don't want your picture taken, get out of Time Square, probably 10 photos being shot every minute by someone up there. lol.

its always good to know the boundaries of the law when people start yelling at you.

It's also important to have a good sense of human relations. While knowing one's rights is never a bad thing, and having paperwork on you might help in some instances, I suspect when someone is yelling at a photographer on the street, that paperwork may not do the photographer as much good as common sense, good instincts, and decent communication skills.

 

Try getting a shot of Time Square without people in the shot.

That would be tough! :) There's a difference, though, between taking a wide shot of Times Square which includes a crowd scene, for example, and zooming in on someone's kid who's in the middle of that crowd.

 

I think in shades of gray in these situations. It's not so much about my rights or people being fair game. It's a matter of my own need or desire to take pics in public, including people and life on the street, balanced with respect and an awareness of the concerns for privacy in this day and age, even when people are in public. While I very well might take pictures people would prefer I didn't take, I have no way of knowing since most of them will never even know I took their picture. That being said, I can't think of too many instances where I would deny a request to erase or not publish something due to a subject's wanting privacy.

Common courtesy.

Simple enough.

Common courtesy.

Simple enough.

 

Yes.

I'm all for common courtesy, but if someone starts yelling at me, I'm not going to cave in and give up my rights. I always have a big, heavy camera I can use for self defense.