Asked to remove photo

harr

Hi
Probably one for the professionals, I am only getting into photography proper the last few years...I do a lot of running events locally normally charity runs or school fundraisers...I never charge or even watermark my shots and people are free to use them as they want.
I upload them to a Facebook book album and post links to the race organisers who use them as they wish...I enjoy the days out and I get a lot practice and my photos have improved and I have finally have purchased a fast zoom and getting great photos.

Did a local event two weeks ago took over 600 photos and everyone was happy with the results except for one lady who made contact on Monday and asked me to remove a photo of her as it was causing her a problem, she then went into a rant about publishing photos without consent and permission from people in the photos, I didn't argue with her and removed photo and told her it would still be up on the race page as well...

She again contacted me today saying she was seeking legal advice as the photos had caused her untold problems with her employer and other issues...seems she has been off work with an injury the last few months.

Just seeking clarification that it is perfectly ok to photograph people in a public place and to publish said photos on social media?
Thanks

Sorry for long post :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

IANAL, but i'd be inclined to write back and ask her or her solicitor to clarify what you supposedly did wrong, especially as you removed the photos on request.

challengemaster

Sounds like she was caught scamming her employer

GBX

As you've already removed the photo - her issue with the employer is not your problem. That's hers. As magic said, ask for clarification on what the issue was.

harr

magicbastarder wrote: »

IANAL, but i'd be inclined to write back and ask her or her solicitor to clarify what you supposedly did wrong, especially as you removed the photos on request.

To be honest I think she is bluffing and just pissed off she has landed herself in a bit of trouble for running a 10k race..I will do as you suggested and email her back and ask to outline exactly what I have done wrong..

Lady is a tramp

harr wrote: »

To be honest I think she is bluffing and just pissed off she has landed herself in a bit of trouble for running a 10k race..I will do as you suggested and email her back and ask to outline exactly what I have done wrong..

Do you know, I wouldn't bother! As it stands, it sounds like you've done nothing wrong.

Any communication with her, and you run the risk of somehow incriminating yourself, by something you might say in the e-mail, if she does end up seeking legal advice. Ignore her. Don't give her anything to use!

magicbastarder

was the race on public or private ground?
what a bleeding idiot if she decided to run a 10k while off work due to injury.

Kintarō Hattori

Isn't it the case that if you're in a public place you have no expectation to the right of privacy and the fact that you don't charge for the photos means you don't need a release form. So and I could be wrong, she hasn't got a leg to stand on?

magicbastarder

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

So and I could be wrong, she hasn't got a leg to stand on?

that's not fair. it could be her leg that's injured.

faceman

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Isn't it the case that if you're in a public place you have no expectation to the right of privacy and the fact that you don't charge for the photos means you don't need a release form. So and I could be wrong, she hasn't got a leg to stand on?

I'm not legal Eagle but afaik this is correct. It's a public place and sounds like it was also a public event, therefore the OP is free to take photos as long he wasn't harassing anyone or taking pictures covertly. He wasn't doing it for profit either so he's covered on that account too.

Given the OP removed the photo her request (and presumable deleted the originals) then that's all he is required to do. She has no grounds to anything.

As I said I'm no solicitor. I do know a little bit about this from my event organising side of things.

harr

The race was on public roads...that were still open to regular traffic as in they were not closed off...I have taken thousands of photos over the past year for various events and have photographed probably thousands of people with not one issue...if people want a higher resolution photo to print I always oblige..

ED E

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Isn't it the case that if you're in a public place you have no expectation to the right of privacy and the fact that you don't charge for the photos means you don't need a release form. So and I could be wrong, she hasn't got a leg to stand on?

You're spot on. The exception being minors.

Just laugh at her and send her company a large print for their case with your compliments.

magicbastarder

harr wrote: »

The race was on public roads

you're absolutely in the clear so.
my concern was that it could have been on private property, which would have possibly complicated matters. but if she was in public, she has no redress.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

The_Valeyard

Blow it up OP,

10 X 10

Bishop Brennan style.

I really dont see how the OP could be in the wrong.

Paulw

If the race is run in public, then she has no case at all.

I've covered many events, local, national, etc 10k races, marathons, etc. I've had the odd request to remove photos, and I usually do, but I wouldn't enter in to any conversation/discussion. I may reply with a simple "photo now removed", but nothing else.

ED E wrote: »

The exception being minors.

Where did you get that from? There is no exception for minors.

InTheTrees

harr wrote: »

To be honest I think she is bluffing and just pissed off she has landed herself in a bit of trouble for running a 10k race..I will do as you suggested and email her back and ask to outline exactly what I have done wrong..

What reason do you have for contacting them again? Why engage with them in any way?

harr

InTheTrees wrote: »

What reason do you have for contacting them again? Why engage with them in any way?

Not going to now...just going to leave it and not engage with her any further...going from reading a link posted I have done nothing wrong but will let her find that out for herself...

groovyg

harr wrote: »

Hi

Did a local event two weeks ago took over 600 photos and everyone was happy with the results except for one lady who made contact on Monday and asked me to remove a photo of her as it was causing her a problem, she then went into a rant about publishing photos without consent and permission from people in the photos, I didn't argue with her and removed photo and told her it would still be up on the race page as well...

She again contacted me today saying she was seeking legal advice as the photos had caused her untold problems with her employer and other issues...seems she has been off work with an injury the last few months.

Is she going to get the race organisers to remove her name from the results too or did she run under somebody else' s name to avoid this issue.

harr

groovyg wrote: »

Is she going to get the race organisers to remove her name from the results too or did she run under somebody else' s name to avoid this issue.

I have no idea, but good point. She did say she asked the race organisers to remove photo from that page...but currently it's still up..
I know the local paper had a photographer at the race so come tomorrow her picture could be in print media as well..

cfuserkildare

If the picture was taken in a public place,
and you are not claiming any royalties for them,
Then you are under no real legal obligation to even take the photos down.

PabloAndRoy

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Isn't it the case that if you're in a public place you have no expectation to the right of privacy and the fact that you don't charge for the photos means you don't need a release form. So and I could be wrong, she hasn't got a leg to stand on?

IANAL but that in itself is not true. there can always be a reasonable expectation of privacy. What is reasonable? That is something a judge would ultimately decide.

OP .. have a read of this: https://www.digitalrights.ie/photographers-rights/
At a cursory glance, I would say you are 100% in the clear.

Jayop

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Blow it up OP,

10 X 10

Bishop Brennan style.

I really dont see how the OP could be in the wrong.

Put it on the side of a van and park it outside her office?? Surely it's the next logical step.

judeboy101

Paulw wrote: »

If the race is run in public, then she has no case at all.

I've covered many events, local, national, etc 10k races, marathons, etc. I've had the odd request to remove photos, and I usually do, but I wouldn't enter in to any conversation/discussion. I may reply with a simple "photo now removed", but nothing else.



Where did you get that from? There is no exception for minors.

There are plenty of lads locked up in arbor hill for those type of photos

PabloAndRoy

PabloAndRoy wrote: »

IANAL but that in itself is not true. there can always be a reasonable expectation of privacy. What is reasonable? That is something a judge would ultimately decide.

In a public place you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, though.

gloobag

Deleted User wrote: »

In a public place you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, though.

Actually, you do. There is a big difference between being photographed participating in a public event and minding your own business sitting outside a coffee shop or in a park when someone sticks a camera in your face. It's all down to the judge at the end of the day, but I'd imagine most normal folks would consider the latter scenario to be out of order. Even if it is technically legal, the judge can still decide that he/she won't stand for it. It's situation dependent of course.

Source: My wife is a solicitor.

melekalikimaka

The issue is that the term privacy is not clearly defined legally, and open to interpretation on case by case,removing the photo really stands in your favour as you weren't obliged to

gloobag

gloobag wrote: »

Actually, you do. There is a big difference between being photographed participating in a public event and minding your own business sitting outside a coffee shop or in a park when someone sticks a camera in your face. It's all down to the judge at the end of the day, but I'd imagine most normal folks would consider the latter scenario to be out of order. Even if it is technically legal, the judge can still decide that he/she won't stand for it. It's situation dependent of course.

Source: My wife is a solicitor.

A judge is absolutely able to make his or her own decisions and form opinions as they see fit.

However, the law, which the judge will form their opinion on, is that if you are in a public place, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

Sitting outside a coffee shop, waiting in your car in the tesco car park, standing in the dole queue, taking a sneaky pee down a back alley, a late night romp on a dark beach, walking into or out of a court.. all things we'd rather not be photographed doing, but all things where you have no expectation of privacy in a public place and can be photographed at will.

A judge may well find it annoying that you photographed someone in a certain way, but it's well within the rights of the photographer to do it.

(as an aside, although I myself don't go around photographing people like that, I do believe that law should remain untouched).

Seve OB

Haha, got to the bit about employer and laughed, she was on sick day and out running.....

Then other issues....... She probably has an insurance claim or injury payout and could be caught rapid.........

OP keep your eye out for her at future events and snap away.......

Sleeper12

You don't need permission to take photos or video in public. Even if someone asks you not to film them you are still entitled to. Basic manners for me would suggest not filming someone when they ask but you can keep on filming all you want. You can then post them on Facebook without worrying. Just look at the videos posted online by the water meter protesters. There was nothing that the Gardai could do about it.
You've done your best to keep this woman happy. This is one of the good things about Facebook, scammers are getting caught out. Lots of court claims thrown out etc.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. You've done nothing wrong & acted quite honerably as far as I can see

I love Sean nos

harr wrote: »

She again contacted me today saying she was seeking legal advice as the photos had caused her untold problems with her employer and other issues...seems she has been off work with an injury the last few months.

Tell her to make sure her solicitor spells your name correctly. The photo didn't cause any problem; her behaviour did.