Taking photos in public.

jamesdublin12

Ok, So where can I find info on taking photos in Public.
I have been told that I can take pics of people once in a public place and that i am doing nothing wrong.. some people dont like this etc.. So do they actually have a say.

The other thing, is that if there is a logo in a pic, can i not submit it, cos of logo and copyright etc.

Please guys, I am just looking for the advice where I can find facts on it. I know some people think this and that, but I really need to stick to facts if u can send links etc... as this is important info, not just to me, but anyone else coming on and looking for the same advice.

thanks
James

qwertz

One important detail is missing. Are you taking photos just for fun/hobby or for commercial reasons?

Latchy

Thing is james while their is i am sure strict rules on the use of public photos with members of the public in them it's still not going to stop millions of people clicking away .I am sure each and every one of us ( without approval) is on somebodys digi cameras somewere in the world and maybe even online in innocents family photos , blogs etc as back drop .However understand your concern and be intresting to hear feedback .I myself would like to know how boards people feel about use of their scenic views ( or off people ) in video such as on you tube .?

ThOnda

Search the thread "Is Ireland living in the dark ages" or something like that. More than five pages of advice and suggestions.

smelltheglove

I dont think there is anything to say no you cant take a picture of someone. I think if you have the opportunity to present to that person your intention to upload or print than do so. I remember once a photograph being uploaded of me that I did not like and did not aqppreciate. The photo was taken of me whilst I was having a drink and chatting away, I had a look of shock on my face as I didnt particularily like the person and I was saying to someone why the f is ..... taking a pic of me.

Having said that I know that they were perfectly within their rights to take a photograph of anyone present as it was their duty to do so and I have done so myself since with photos of other people.

Phototoxin

"Is Ireland living in the dark ages"

I always seem to be the one starting these controversial threads. Can I get the photo-boardsie award of 'most interesting firetopic-starter?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

It's only really a dodgy issue if you're taking a picture of a specific person and then publishing it for profit.

CabanSail

My understanding is;

If it's in a Public place then you can go ahead & take photo's. If someone objects then general courtesty would say that you stop, but this would depend on the situation. If, in the course of taking photo's you engage in behaviour which can be construed as harrassment or stalking, then there are laws to deal with those things.

The images you take will need some sort of signed release from people who are clearly identifable if you want to use the images for commercial applications.

This is only MY take on these issues. I have been talking to a Lawyer who specialises in Media Law recently. Later in the year we should have a talk on this issue at DCC. It could be a very interesting night. Members will have the opportunity to submit specific questions in advance of that meeting & get advice on the night.

Anouilh

CabanSail wrote: »

My understanding is;

If it's in a Public place then you can go ahead & take photo's. If someone objects then general courtesty would say that you stop, but this would depend on the situation. If, in the course of taking photo's you engage in behaviour which can be construed as harrassment or stalking, then there are laws to deal with those things.

The images you take will need some sort of signed release from people who are clearly identifable if you want to use the images for commercial applications.

This is only MY take on these issues. I have been talking to a Lawyer who specialises in Media Law recently. Later in the year we should have a talk on this issue at DCC. It could be a very interesting night. Members will have the opportunity to submit specific questions in advance of that meeting & get advice on the night.

I would be interested in this lecture.

What is DCC?

This is an area so bound up with civil liberty, rights and freedom that it is very much debated.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81863

Taking photos of general streetscapes with people moving round should not be a problem. Focusing on a person who is having a "bad day" and holding them up to public ridicule is quite another matter...

Calina

DCC is Dublin Camera Club.

This would be worth a look also.

challengemaster

CabanSail wrote: »

The images you take will need some sort of signed release from people who are clearly identifable if you want to use the images for commercial applications.

That'd be my understanding too, however, one thing doesn't fit within those parameters. Paparazzi. I seriously doubt that celebs sign any release form for those shots..!

Also what about photographers seen taking snaps of people at the four courts on the news every day? Pics of ministers / criminals on trial / people making statements outside the dail / etc.

I highly doubt these shots have all gotten a model release form... yet they do end up in papers, and I doubt they're in there for free..

Paulw

challengemaster wrote: »

That'd be my understanding too, however, one thing doesn't fit within those parameters. Paparazzi. I seriously doubt that celebs sign any release form for those shots..!

Also what about photographers seen taking snaps of people at the four courts on the news every day? Pics of ministers / criminals on trial / people making statements outside the dail / etc.

I highly doubt these shots have all gotten a model release form... yet they do end up in papers, and I doubt they're in there for free..

You don't need a model release if the image is for editorial use (press, papers, etc).

Thirdfox

Also as harassment is defined as a continuing action you can always (legally) take one picture of a person in the public arena. If you do not continue then it can't be harassment.

Fionn

if its for Stock photography you need a model release for people and in some cases even for buildings, most Stock Agencies will not accept any commercial branding on the object in the photograph check the T&C's of any of the Stock Agencies
For Newspapers and such you have greater latitude, I've taken photographs of (shock horror) children!!!! gotten their names and published the lot in newspapers and even received payment for it , ive also taken photographs of politicians for gain without model release - so each situation has to be considered on it's own merits, i dont think theres a blanket solution to this question as there are so many different situations etc.

melekalikimaka

Anouilh wrote: »

Taking photos of general streetscapes with people moving round should not be a problem. Focusing on a person who is having a "bad day" and holding them up to public ridicule is quite another matter...

That sums it up in my mind

Anouilh

This might be helpful, especially where the comments give experiences on the Continent which might differ from what one expects in Britain and Ireland.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2008/03/14/photography-in-public-areas#comments

Anouilh

Are there posters here from Australia.

I'm planning a visit and, in the past, found it a relaxed place for street photography.

Fabulous architecture, BTW.

CabanSail

I am "from" Australia.

Discussing places there will be quite off topic. Happy to discuss in another thread or by PM

Fajitas!

Cabansail is from Australia

Anouilh

CabanSail wrote: »

I am "from" Australia.

Discussing places there will be quite off topic. Happy to discuss in another thread or by PM

Thank you.

Perhaps some general tips on comportment for the street photographer there would still be on topic?

CabanSail

Sure!

Generally speaking (very general) the Australian culture is very Irish. Now this is only my observation from living in the two countries. I always assumed, like many, that the cultural roots would be more from the UK, as the modern history was begun with British Colonies. What I realise now is that a lot of the convicts that were transported were actually Irish (the Brits are generous that way! )

Annnnyway .... that is a long winded to say that many places in Australia are like Ireland with better weather. Both cultures have similar disregard for class barriers & a very healthy flare for anti-establishment sentiments.

So while the Brits seem to have all sorts of problems with Photgraphy in Public, it has not been much of a problem here. The same sort of attitude is prevelant in Australia. If you conduct yourself much the same as you do here then there you should have few problems. Do things discreetly and all will be OK, start acting the Pork Chop (Muppet) with a Camera there & someone may take offence. Most places would be perfectly safe to go with an expensive camera but there are areas, like here, you would be best to keep away from.

Does that make sense?

Anouilh

Yes.

And thank you for qualifying what previous experience has taught me. I took photos of "The World's Longest Lunch" of which I'm very proud and nobody seemed to be bothered.

I expect that photographing the police would attract the same amount of attention as it does in Europe, however.

My Yorkshire great-grandmother would have laughed, I expect, at your comparisons between Irish and English cultures.

whyulittle

CabanSail wrote: »

What I realise now is that a lot of the convicts that were transported were actually Irish (the Brits are generous that way! )

Steal a loaf of bread, and get a free trip to Australia. If only nowadays.

Anouilh

Bumping this because I have made an interesting discovery.

It is much easier to take photos in public places in Singapore and Australia than it is in Europe, I have just found.

There is no fuss about photographing in the shopping malls that I visited while touring there and I got some nice shop fronts and architectural details. Perhaps in time the value of allowing photographers to record the interiors of European shopping centres will dawn on those who organise them?

There was an Irish dancing group in Dundrum Shopping Centre a few days ago and not a camera in sight.
An opportunity missed...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Anouilh wrote: »

Bumping this because I have made an interesting discovery.

It is much easier to take photos in public places in Singapore and Australia than it is in Europe, I have just found.

There is no fuss about photographing in the shopping malls that I visited while touring there and I got some nice shop fronts and architectural details. Perhaps in time the value of allowing photographers to record the interiors of European shopping centres will dawn on those who organise them?

There was an Irish dancing group in Dundrum Shopping Centre a few days ago and not a camera in sight.
An opportunity missed...

Have taken pics in Dundrum SC before, no problem. What's the difference between taking pics of that group, and taking pics of the St Patrick's Day Parade?

Paulw

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Have taken pics in Dundrum SC before, no problem. What's the difference between taking pics of that group, and taking pics of the St Patrick's Day Parade?

The difference is that Dundrum SC is private property. They have the right to set conditions for entry, such as no photography allowed.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

The difference is that Dundrum SC is private property. They have the right to set conditions for entry, such as no photography allowed.

And this has been debated at length in early Spring here.

I had an interesting experience in a Melbourne art museum, which is also private property. Photography is allowed, so I set off happily to record my experiences, notably of the ambience within the gallery rather than individual works.

I was approached and asked to remove a very small travel tripod that I use almost all the time now, especially to stabilize images in very low light situations as flash is not allowed. Of course I complied, but there was an interesting chat about the fact that a tripod can be anything from a few inches to several feet long and that a general rule is not always sensible.


It was a useful learning experience as I had to train myself to stay stock still and not rely on any outside stabilizing equipment. Now I'm wondering if a small bean bag should be added to my stock in trade.

Anouilh

CabanSail wrote: »

I am "from" Australia.

Discussing places there will be quite off topic. Happy to discuss in another thread or by PM

Again thanks for this.

I hope to be able to share quite a few images here over the next few months.

What part of Australia are you from?
It is such a vast and variable place.

RLJ

Last week I saw a man pushing a child in child push chair-not sure correct term-
The front of the chair had a number plate like a car plate with the blue at the left and the childs name was printed on it. Had i my P&S i would have asked him if i could take a pic and would have sent to paper along with a small write up and would probably be payed a small fee if printed.

So with the man's permission would i be ok to take the pic and get paid

Paulw

Even without his permission you'd be ok. Press usage is considered editorial, so doesn't require the subject's permission.

ajsp.

My take: Step out in public and you have waved your right of privacy, Is this wrong?

Paulw

ajsp. wrote: »

My take: Step out in public and you have waved your right of privacy, Is this wrong?

Yes and no. It can depend on a number of circumstances, including the use of the image taken.

RLJ

Paulw wrote: »

Even without his permission you'd be ok. Press usage is considered editorial, so doesn't require the subject's permission.

But could not anyone claim to be a journalist if snapping street fights /arrests. I am not an NUJ member but anyone can call themselves a journalist although i do not claim to be

Anouilh

A search for "Anna E Helling" and "personality" leads to some very good reading on the subject of tort of personality and how laws in relation to privacy differ between Europe and the U.S.

I have decided to skip France from now on, as the laws on street photography are quite limiting. Governments should be looking at these issues carefully. While individuals should always be protected in public spaces, the very social activity of capturing streetscapes with people in them is a very communicative past time.

Paulw

RLJ wrote: »

But could not anyone claim to be a journalist if snapping street fights /arrests. I am not an NUJ member but anyone can call themselves a journalist although i do not claim to be

It's not what you claim to be (or are). It's what you do with the image. Being a member of the NUJ has nothing to do with it, as they have no special photographic rights above anyone else.

Tony1000

In a nutshell you can take photos of people in public,but you cant use them for advertising purposes unless you have their permission.
Be careful if you are shooting in a local park as people tend to become aware that you have a camera especially if you are taking pictures and their are children around.
By all means take photos but do use common sense when out there.
Regards Tony

Burnt

Personally, I feel that it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
in regards taking pictures; each opportunity is a critical moment, when it's
past; the movement, expression, light, it's gone never to be recreated.

There is far too much "perverted witch-doctor sealing my soul and posting
it on the internet" B.S. paranoia out there.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

It's not what you claim to be (or are). It's what you do with the image. Being a member of the NUJ has nothing to do with it, as they have no special photographic rights above anyone else.

While this is true, membership of the NUJ has traditionally meant that members can contribute to the debate on protocols from a professional standpoint.

The jolly days of dear old Father Browne documenting society freely are, seemingly, gone forever for anybody who is conscious of contemporary society and its norms.

I don't know how this pilot study has evolved:

http://www.epuk.org/News/836/met-to-relax-london-photography-restrictions

However, the fact that a professional journalist took time to highlight the shortcomings of tagging photographers is noteworthy. Amateur photographers like myself do not tend to make political stands in relation to freedom of expression.

It is interesting that members of the NUJ often do...

(Also, I am aware that laws in Britain are not the same as those in Ireland, but EU laws operate here and it is good to be aware of protocol when travelling.)

Anouilh

jamesdublin12 wrote: »

...The other thing, is that if there is a logo in a pic, can i not submit it, cos of logo and copyright etc...

If you do some searches for "photograhy" and "fair use" you will be able to see general trends on this subject. Ireland is relatively relaxed, I find, but you might find some useful reading here:

http://news.deviantart.com/article/47231/

Certain buildings and police logos are copyrighted.


I think that temperament counts for a lot when photographing on the streets. Some people like to confront, others just take safe options.

Really, given that millions of photos are uploaded onto the Internet every day, there is no need to be over scrupulous.

Anouilh

RLJ wrote: »

But could not anyone claim to be a journalist if snapping street fights /arrests. I am not an NUJ member but anyone can call themselves a journalist although i do not claim to be

In fact, people do not usually call themselves journalists. There has been a decline in the regard in which the profession is held since I worked as a hack and it is often assumed, and wrongly at that, that journalism and sleaze are one.

As for recording street fights, I think you have put your finger on why street photojournalism is still a male preserve. I have taken photos of people who looked very displeased to be on camera. I would not dream of uploading them to a public forum and if fights were to start near me I would not photograph them. One journalist I spoke to explained, with humour, that when documenting a street riot and the participants, enraged, break one's camera, it's one way of getting some nice new gear, thanks to insurance...

RLJ

Anouilh wrote: »

In fact, people do not usually call themselves journalists.

I meant to the garda who challenged them to let him know one would not be intimidated

In a certain local radio the 'journalist' when called to a dispute about a delay at a railway crossing drove there in the station jeep with the logo in huge letters. Of course they saw her a mile off so no story. That is the problem with the ego of the 'journalist' more worried about being seen in the company jeep than getting the story

I just meant saying 'i am a journalist' if challenged. A writer friend of mine found the words I am a journalist and i know the law very effective even tho he is not and doesn't always know all the relevant laws. It cannot be any more of a bluff than a cop who tries to bluff people about the law.

Paulw

RLJ wrote: »

I just meant saying 'i am a journalist' if challenged.

But, being a journalist gives you no special rights/access at all.

You might as well claim to be Superman, a milkman, a taxi driver, as a journalist.

Anouilh

RLJ wrote: »

I just meant saying 'i am a journalist' if challenged.

Things certainly have changed. People used just offer me tea...

News reporting is different and carrying a press badge is still useful. It does not bring privileges, but proves that one is at work.

RLJ

Paulw wrote: »

But, being a journalist gives you no special rights/access at all.
.

but it tells the cop you know the law and are more likely to be assertive than an ordinary person. I am speaking here about being challenged by the garda as distinct from the rioters. I think someone wrote in this or another thread that a cop took his camera and was aggressive

I think it was a different thread i will try to find it

Here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055645768

RLJ

Anouilh wrote: »

News reporting is different and carrying a press badge is still useful. It does not bring privileges, but proves that one is at work.

and it let the cops know they will be exposed if they do any bullying. That is my point

Paulw

RLJ wrote: »

but it tells the cop you know the law and are more likely to be assertive than an ordinary person. I am speaking here about being challenged by the garda as distinct from the rioters. I think someone wrote in this or another thread that a cop took his camera and was aggressive

I doubt many journalists know the law that well. I'd bet that a majority wouldn't know any more about the law than you or I. Being a journalist affords you no special protection under the law.

RLJ

Being a journalist affords you no special protection under the law.

i know that. i am talking about speaking up for your self ...oh i am not going to bother no one seems to understand my point.but if iam out taking pics a cop won't bully me....

Paulw

RLJ wrote: »

i know that. i am talking about speaking up for your self ...oh i am not going to bother no one seems to understand my point.but if iam out taking pics a cop won't bully me....

You can speak up for yourself, and stand up for your rights, without having to make false statements, or false claims. It should make no difference.

Claiming to be a journalist should make no difference at all as to how you are treated.