The legality of shots of people in roller coasters and amusement parks?

<p>Many seem to be struggling with the legality - or lack of - of street photos and publishing in general. The different laws in different countries etc. Others seem to worry about the publishing of pictures without the (written) consent of the people in the photos. (E.g: http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00YgoG)<br>

My problem is this: I went to a large amusement park, and paid the entrance fee like everybodyu else, and then shot some very amusing photos of people riding one of the wild roller coasters. The people in the photos are easily identifiable, they scream happily and they therefore not directly portrayed in a "defaming" manner. But of course the ladies' hair are flying and a lot of grimassing and a lot of body-twitching is going on as the rollercoaster thunders downward. And yes, there are also minors with eyes and mouths wide open and their legs and arms move in all directions. All adding up to what we normally would consider just a lot of harmless fun!<br>

Now, I was not actually taking the ride myself, but had positioned myself on the ground at a good spot, where the rollercoaster comes from above right towards me at high velocity. (Thanks a lot, focusing system Multi-CAM 3500DX of my beloved Nikon D7100, you are indeed fast at getting moving targets in focus!)<br>

To be quite sure, what my rights are, I actually phoned said amusement park and talked to one of their communication officers. He told me that I had every right to take all the photos I liked in their amusement park, but I could not publish my photos. It was because the amusement park and the attraction itself is to be considered not as "a public space" but a private one, also seing everybody has paid to get in - to the amusement park, and on the specific ride. "And then they have a right to be left somewhat alone," as he put it. But I did not get a specification as to what "publishing" exactly implies.<br>

I then looked at the amusement park's homepage and under the ride in question its says among other things: "Don't forget a big smile when you ride in the Demon - a photo will be taken on this ride!" That means, I guess, that the owners of the ride has installed digital cameras along the ride or in the carriages themselves, and then it is possible at the exit to see a selection and maybe by a picture of yourself screaming during the ride. But that also means that other people, strangers, who have not asked for or permitted other people to buy pictures of them contorting in a rollercoaster carriage, in this way "involuntarily" get their photo taken - and published. It confuses me. Does it mean that - as long as you own a ride that I guess is to be considered a private space within the amusement park's private space - it is ok to charge your customers for the ride and just on the amusement park's website under "rides" to announce that you'll get photographed if you take exactly that ride - whether you want it or not?<br>

And what does it actually mean to be "published". In other fora the issue of the legality of taking street photos always talk about publishing in a context with for commercial purposes i.e. in a book, in a magazine in ads etc. But what about e.g. "publishing" such a roller coaster photo here on Photo.net? Would that be just as illegal? I mean, there is nothing commercial about uploading one of my roller coaster photos here, or would that also be a "crime"? And what about private held non-commercial blogs? And Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest etc., etc.? Does the law distinguish?<br>

By the way, in my country, Denmark, the press photographers abide to a rule/law that says it is perfectly ok to publish photos on the editorial pages in a news media (not advertising, where you always need a model release) if the picture of people has been taken in a public space of people also being in a public space. But it is forbidden for the photographer, although he himself is standing in a public space from there to shoot through windows of a private house or even people standing in open air on a balcony on a private building.<br>

I think it is somewhat confusing on the one hand admiring the greats of the past like Cartier-Bresson, Arbus, Winogrand, Weegee, Eisenstaedt and all the others, who did not give it one second's thought as to the legality, because their art/ their mission/their all consuming passion was to get the picture at all costs no matter what...<br>

But we mere mortals with a timid (and cowardly?) disposition, what should we do, if we do not want to give it all up right away? <br>

So, I would be very grateful to hear some of your thoughts as to the possibility of me uploading some of my roller coaster photos here on Photo.net. Is it under US law or me uploading from Denmark, are the pictures under Danish Law? And what are the risks. Or do I in fact worry needlessly?<br>

(And sorry for this long text that I did not know how to express in a shorter fashion.)<br>

Thanks a lot in advance!<br>

Philip</p>

<p>Yes.<br>

Especially to the last question. ;)</p>

 

<p>meant to attach this a proof of concept:</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it is somewhat confusing on the one hand admiring the greats of the past like Cartier-Bresson, Arbus, Winogrand, Weegee, Eisenstaedt and all the others, who did not give it one second's thought as to the legality, because their art/ their mission/their all consuming passion was to get the picture at all costs no matter what...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Privacy concerns over photography are fairly new. Also, the people you mention shot with permission or in public places. An amusement park, at least in the US, is not considered a public place. The park can dictate what you can do.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> But that also means that other people, strangers, who have not asked for or permitted other people to buy pictures of them contorting in a rollercoaster carriage, in this way "involuntarily" get their photo taken - and published. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Parks sell photos to the people in the pictures, not to random strangers. However, beyond that, there can be a policy statement like this one:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By entering the park, each guest grants Six Flags America the right to film, videotape, or photograph him/her on park property for any reason without payment or consideration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi JDM, you really set me straigth there with one word oosing with the (American?) can-do-attitude, no fidgeting and "Don't Worry, Be Happy" atmosphere. But I am no Harvard professor able to hide in the vast and great outdoors/- Plains if things get overheated here in little Denmark. And furthermore, I remember, in here, reading long worried accounts from hobby photographers, who had worked all their lives as attorneys. And they called the whole field of legality as "a place where you should tread with utmost caution." So either I have my lawyer with me in a leash every time I venture out into the big city with my camera, or I say "to hell with consequences" - and call my lawyer immediately when the calls from the alleged victims start coming in ;-)</p>

<p>Hi Jeff, thanks for your consice answer. I take it thean that it also means that uploading a rollercoaster photo from the amusement park in question on this site is also to be considered as a "prohibited publication" even if there is no commercial aspects involved?<br>

Best regards<br>

Philip </p>

<p>I can't tell you anything about Denmark but, in the U.S., there are four situations where the displayer of a photo could be liable to a person shown in the photo... <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy/primer-invasion-privacy">http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy/primer-invasion-privacy</a></p>

<p>As to the Amusement Park, its a different analysis altogether. Its about real estate property ownership rights. People visiting the park have a license to be on the owned premises and the owner's can forbid specified behavior. The owner or their lessee/possessor can compel non-compliant visitors to leave. The landowner or lessee can't prevent images taken at the property from being displayed unless that power was created as a condition for being allowed on the property in the first place. Essentially a contract. Terms that may be on a ticket or displayed at the point of entry. (Whether notice of the condition being made after a ticket purchase counts is a rarely addressed issue since the costs of fighting it usually far outweigh the benefit.)</p>

<p>So there we have it...</p>

<p>1) Four right to privacy situations people in a picture can assert as to use/display of an image.<br /> 2) Real Estate owner/possessor rights to prevent or stop behavior (photography related or not) on the real estate. <br /> 3) Real Estate owner/possessor rights to restrict use of images made on the real estate if the restriction is established by contract.</p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I take it thean that it also means that uploading a rollercoaster photo from the amusement park in question on this site is also to be considered as a "prohibited publication" even if there is no commercial aspects involved?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Just do it. I bet nobody will care.</p>

<p>Hi John H., Thanks a lot for such an informed and sober reply. As I see it, it clearly goes against my (childish) itch to publish any "funny" roller coaster photos here on this site also. In fact, the conclusion on all the judicial text in your link points in the direction of "be careful and don't do anything if in doubt that it can portray people in a negative way". I guess you could say that a lot of street photography also is in danger if you actually are not allowed to portray people in an embarrassing situation/put them in a false light. And you actually do see a lot of street photos like that. Seldom of gangsters or bouncers or young desperados with a lot of muscles and an eagerness to act promptly. But so many street photographers happen to have a keen eye for the helpless drunk in the gutter, the frail old lady tripping over her crutches or the "noble savages" in their deep poverty far away in "primitive" countries - all with no likeliness to either beat the street photographer over the head as he is taking the picture, or in general ever come across your published photos on the internet or elsewhere. Of course, it is never to ridicule but always to enlighten, make us think and to point to social injustice. But, heh, still a good time for some re-examination and food for thought for the street photographers?</p>

<p>Hi Steve, I would so much like to follow your advice. Smile at the world, and not take it all so seriously. But, wait a minute, I am about to have a great time on other people's expense, although it in my mind is completely harmless - but that is not necessarily how others or the "victims" view it, right? And that is actually wrong? And then again, I read your tempting phrase, "I bet nobody will care." And I know you are probably 99% right. But THEN again, could you be the snake in the garden, urging me and others to take a bite of the apple. The bite you never shall be able to atone for? Oh, dear. I shall now become strictly an astro-photographer, I think. No property releases needed. Yet.<br /> Best regards<br /> Philip</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks a lot for such an informed and sober reply. As I see it, it clearly goes against my (childish) itch to publish any "funny" roller coaster photos here on this site also. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That wasn't how I saw it.</p>

<p>You really, really do worry too much.</p>

<p>And you don't need to get insulting just because somebody tells you so.<br>

You should also work on the "how to express in a shorter fashion" business too.</p>

 

<p>Philip, there's a clear distinction here. </p>

<p>In the U.S. public photography, in a public place (on a city street, for example) is fair game. There is no expectation of privacy, and you can take and do what you wish.</p>

<p>On private property, however, it's a different issue. You're talking about taking photographs <em>on private property</em> where you do not have explicit permission, nor a contract with the subjects, to do as you wish with the images. The <em>park</em> has a license to take photographs of the guests; the guests enter into that contract when they purchase and use a ticket. They have no such contract with you. Therefore, you would have to get permission from your subjects to do anything <em>at all</em> with the image.</p>

<p>This has nothing to do with the activity and everything to do with location and law. It has nothing to do with portraying people in an unflattering light, and everything to do with expectations of privacy. I don't pretend to know the laws in Scandinavian countries, but have you considered logically and clearly separating the issues here, to see what does and does not seem reasonable and relevant? Your "having fun" is irrelevant; your violation of privacy on private property is very relevant. You don't have to become an astrophotographer, just figure out where and when you can accomplish what you wish. But that likely won't involve pictures of people on a rollercoaster.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>on a city street, for example</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This isn't really true. If there is an expectation of privacy - say you are on a city street but shoot a person sitting in a restaurant - then there are laws (and this may be state by state) that say otherwise. Anti-paparazzi laws in California are a good example</p>

<p>If you e.g. Google "photos of people in roller coaster" you get a lot of hits. And even dedicated sites or blogs. I guess they in reality are not legal?<br /> <br /> John H: I am sorry if I have misunderstood you. I did not mean to say, that you were of the opinion that I had a childish itch to upload "funny" roller coaster photos.<br /> <br /> JDM: I certainly did not mean to insult you. It was just that your nearly one word reply compared to my very long question, in my mind, was very humorous and funny. And I wanted to respond in a convivial (is that the right word?) friendly and humorous tone. But as you can see, English is not my first language (Danish is) so I guess I go wrong sometimes not being aware of nuances, the right tone and idioms etc. Also maybe, what is funny in one country/culture is not funny in another but just insulting. I am so sorry.<br /> <br /> Gary: Many thanks for your answer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're talking about taking photographs <em>on private property</em> where you do not have explicit permission, nor a contract with the subjects, to do as you wish with the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless the landowner or lessee forbids photography as an activity there, one can do what they want with images taken at the property. This was explained earlier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The <em>park</em> has a license to take photographs of the guests; the guests enter into that contract when they purchase and use a ticket. They have no such contract with you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The use of the term license here is misapplied. In any event, the landowner's ability to take images of people exists whether the people present are ticketed or not and a ticket, in of itself, does not mean a contract is formed concerning photographic activity. All the elements of contract formation need to exist with respect to the terms of the ticketing. You're mixing up real property law with contract law. One's presence at the property may involve both but not by default. The distinction was explained before as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Therefore, you would have to get permission from your subjects to do anything <em>at all</em> with the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely false. Permission of the subjects is a completely different analysis and a separate issue from the landowner ability to restrict use of photos. And, yes, this was explained earlier too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This has nothing to do with the activity and everything to do with location and law. It has nothing to do with portraying people in an unflattering light, and everything to do with expectations of privacy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Expectation of privacy is another concept you are mixing up with real property law. Someone being on private property can be a factor in such expectations but, being out in the open where a lot of people are, as being discussed here, will negate any expectation of privacy claims although Jeff's example may apply. At least this wasn't discussed earlier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but have you considered logically and clearly separating the issues</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Likewise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did not mean to say, that you were of the opinion that I had a childish itch to upload "funny" roller coaster photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not what I meant. Rather it was that your read the linked information and explanations as way more restrictive than they actually are. </p>

 

<p>Not a problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't really true. If there is an expectation of privacy - say you are on a city street but shoot a person sitting in a restaurant - then there are laws (and this may be state by state) that say otherwise. Anti-paparazzi laws in California are a good example</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, no. In the US, images captured from a public location, that do not require special equipment such as a telephoto lens, are considered OK. There is no expectation of privacy.<br>

The problem with the paparazzi is that they are using long lenses that get past this definition, and do, indeed, invade the privacy of others. But being able to capture the image of someone through a window of a cafe using a standard lens would be OK. I don't think pushing the camera up against the window of the cafe would be OK, however. Not clear on that gray area.<br>

Most local attempts to obviate this usually results in the ordinances being struck down. The federal definition of permissible overrules.</p>

<p>I'm reading a book on the law for photographers. Haven't gotten to the part where this issue is discussed. May have to revisit this thread after I do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As to the Amusement Park, its a different analysis altogether. Its about real estate property ownership rights. People visiting the park have a license to be on the owned premises and the owner's can forbid specified behavior. The owner or their lessee/possessor can compel non-compliant visitors to leave. The landowner or lessee can't prevent images taken at the property from being displayed unless that power was created as a condition for being allowed on the property in the first place. Essentially a contract. Terms that may be on a ticket or displayed at the point of entry. (Whether notice of the condition being made after a ticket purchase counts is a rarely addressed issue since the costs of fighting it usually far outweigh the benefit.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, you keep saying that various things were discussed before. I'm guessing you mean this paragraph.</p>

<p>License - release - permission. Apologies for using the interchangeably. Focusing on the concept of rights and permissions in this discussion. Less concerned with splitting hairs.</p>

<p>Expectation of privacy has to do with property. By definition. Can't get away from it. Yes, property law involves additional aspects, but the two are not orthogonal.</p>

<p>The problem with this is the paragraph above is that you address the landowner, but not the subject. The landowner has no control, true, but if the guest has entered what is essentially a private venue, then they <em>do</em> have some expectation of privacy. Doesn't matter that there are a bunch of people there, it's a private venue. That's all that matters. This isn't the same as what I think you address above.</p>

<p>Yes, permission of the subject is a separate issue from that of the landowner, but what I said still holds. The photographer is restricted in what can be done with images that are not captured in a public place. I may not have been crystal clear, but I don't believe I was wrong.</p>

<p>For Philip: if the people post their own pictures, that's perfectly reasonable. They're entitled to do so. I don't think that a random person has the same entitlement. For me: don't do it.</p>

<p><strong><em>"For Philip: if the people post their own pictures, that's perfectly reasonable. They're entitled to do so. I don't think that a random person has the same entitlement. For me: don't do it."</em></strong></p>

<p>Gary, thanks for your advice. I do not want to be "splitting hairs" but somehow it sounds inconsistent and paradoxical that it might be ok for me the photographer to upload my photo portraying people that might not have wanted their picture taken in the first place and then certainly might not want their picture uploaded to a public site for everyone to look at them. But that the same act is not considered ok, if I am not the person who actually took the shot but e.g. somebody standing next to me, from whom I borrowed or bought the picture and later uploaded it, say here on photo.net? Or did you mean people posting their own pictures portraying themselves?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Expectation of privacy has to do with property. By definition. Can't get away from it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you can. Some scenarios will result in the right to privacy tort of intrusion regardless of who, if anyone, owns the property. So while property ownership is often a big factor, as I said, it isn't the be all and end all "by definition" as you say. If it were, being on property would have to be be a required element of the tort of intrusion which it isn't.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, permission of the subject is a separate issue from that of the landowner, but what I said still holds. The photographer is restricted in what can be done with images that are not captured in a public place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not accurate unless the photographer's permission to be on the property was conditioned on restrictions on what photos they could use or sell later. That would be contract law with property ownership merely being incidental. If your notions were true, property owners could make legal claims regarding countless images people happened to take while on private property and the entire photography industry and practices that exist would be vastly different than they are.</p>

<p>Finishing that photography law book is good but make sure to avoid mixing up the different concepts in it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>On reflection, isn't it ironic to have this discussion about private photographers violating the privacy of someone in a public space when we find out that governments of all kinds, all over the world, are listening to everything we say on the phone, recording every site we visit, taking our pictures constantly, flying drones over us, and reading all our email?<br>

Just sayin'<br>

"Privacy is so 20th century, get over it"</p>

 

JDM, but the USA government is doing spying for protection of its people. Now, if OP were also in the same trade, then won't be troubled by this privacy thing. . o O ( Should haven't replied due to high risk of thread high jacking. Oh well. )

<p>I can assure you that Original Poster is not in the same trade ;-) And I kind of feel a bit sad about all the people whose job it is to listen in on everything human kind is saying to each other. Firstly because of the sickening level of banality, second to find out that it is not in this way you find out about the truth about anything - mostly due to the level of ignorance and dishonesty between conversing people ;-) So, (completely humorously meant), now it is my turn: You worry too much, JDM. :-)</p>

<p>I suspect you're right, Philip. ;)</p>

<p>FWIW, given the way the places which offer these kinds of rides encourage attendance and photography, I doubt one will ever need to worry about any legal ramifications. I'd suggest walking warily around actual commercial use of the images or somehow running afoul of trademark issues - not some vague idea of "can't publish." </p>

<p>I'd also expect that few people will worry about flying hair or screamy expressions - and the potential of capturing a true wardrobe malfunction would seem to be astronomical. Staged malfunctions? Maybe. However, I'm also fairly confident that at least some of the parks scan the shots taken on their own ride cameras to screen them out before posting them for viewing/sale.</p>