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.

magicbastarder

also, if her employer has already seen the photo, what's the benefit of asking you to remove it - which makes her look worse if it looks like she's trying to cover her tracks after she's been rumbled?

CabanSail

ED E wrote: »

The exception being minors.

There is no exception for minors.

You have the right to photograph people in a public place. The only exceptions that I have heard of is if there would be an expectation of privacy or you are doing it as a means to harass or intimidate.

oppenheimer1

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.

Doesn't this happen all day every day though. People are caught on CCTV going about their normal business all the time.

magicbastarder

There is a qualitative difference between being passively recorded on cctv and someone choosing to stop and take your photo though.

gloobag

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Doesn't this happen all day every day though. People are caught on CCTV going about their normal business all the time.

The laws exist so that law enforcement/the government can use CCTV technology without being sued. The law does not give an individual the right to photograph whoever he/she wants in whatever manner he/she wants. It's not as simple as "You're in a public place, so I can do whatever I want".

If an individual is hiding out in a tree with a 500mm lens taking photos of kids in a park, what do you think their chances are when they cite the "No Expectation of Privacy" law to the cops/judge?

Pkiernan

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 not contact this person. Nothing good can come of it.

AngryHippie

insurance fraud costs everyone.

If that's what it is, and I suspect that is exactly what she is up to, await her response, it won't come, when it doesn't, personally I would e-mail a copy of the photo to http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/ from a disposable e-mail address at a computer in no way connected to you, because there is a very good chance that this unit is ripping people off, be it an employer, a driver, an insurance company, or more likely all 3 at once. If she is getting compensation, or treatment for a non-existent or exaggerated injury, she deserves to get nailed for it, and it might serve as a lesson to some of the other gougers out there.

I hate compo-fraud-culture with a passion.

Out for a fun run....GTFO:mad:

I love Sean nos

Paulw wrote: »

I've covered many events, local, national, etc 10k races, marathons, etc.

judeboy101 wrote: »

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

Do you have a source for this claim that there are people currently incarcerated in Ireland for taking public photos of local and national athletic events?

magicbastarder

AngryHippie wrote: »

personally I would e-mail a copy of the photo to http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/ from a disposable e-mail address at a computer in no way connected to you

if her claims are true that her employer has seen them, this would probably be redundant.
and if you did want to contact the injuries board, i suspect it'd be better to ring them first - you wouldn't have to give details - as an anonymously submitted photo may be inadmissable evidence.

I love Sean nos

Jayop wrote: »

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

With this on the other side.

OldGoat

CabanSail wrote: »

There is no exception for minors.

You have the right to photograph people in a public place. The only exceptions that I have heard of is if there would be an expectation of privacy or you are doing it as a means to harass or intimidate.

There was a bit of an outcry a few years ago where some councils tried to ban photography from playgrounds.

As for posters (however humorously) saying to get in touch with her employers or print it large and publish etc., at that point it becomes harassment/stalking and that IS an offence. Just saying to the OP leave well enough alone.

Paulw

OldGoat wrote: »

There was a bit of an outcry a few years ago where some councils tried to ban photography from playgrounds.

Cork County Council were the only one who were going for it, and I believe it was shot down.

Other than that, in a public area, it is not illegal to photograph anyone, including children.

FlipperThePriest

Paulw wrote: »

it is not illegal to photograph anyone, including children.

Is it okay to then post them online? I did photography for a VEC run artistic event a few years ago. The event was in an open marquee set up in a busy town street. I was asked to get parents to sign release forms for any children that were photographed. Maybe it's no longer a 'public place' as they had acquired the the space?

Paulw

zippy84 wrote: »

Is it okay to then post them online? I did photography for a VEC run artistic event a few years ago. The event was in an open marquee set up in a busy town street. I was asked to get parents to sign release forms for any children that were photographed. Maybe it's no longer a 'public place' as they had acquired the the space?

Who asked you to get release forms signed?

In my work, I take thousands of photos, per annum, of children, at different events - public events, races, family fun days, etc etc. I have never had to get release forms signed. The events have loads of terms and conditions, one being that you may be photographed.

I am much more used to people saying "can you take a photo of us" or "can you make sure you get a nice photo of my child" than having someone complain. I can only remember two incidents where someone requested that a person not be photographed. These I have no issues with.

The images I take are posted online (flickr, facebook, twitter, event websites, etc).

There are, of course, child protection guidelines, such as not naming children in photo captions, etc. It depends on the usage of the image, and the editor/paper/organisers policy.

In general, I don't have to caption a lot of my images, other than a generic caption about the event. I don't need to identify people.

Either way, with public events, public races, etc., there are very very few restrictions on who you can photograph and what you can do with the images.

fixXxer

AngryHippie wrote: »

insurance fraud costs everyone.

If that's what it is, and I suspect that is exactly what she is up to, await her response, it won't come, when it doesn't, personally I would e-mail a copy of the photo to http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/ from a disposable e-mail address at a computer in no way connected to you, because there is a very good chance that this unit is ripping people off, be it an employer, a driver, an insurance company, or more likely all 3 at once. If she is getting compensation, or treatment for a non-existent or exaggerated injury, she deserves to get nailed for it, and it might serve as a lesson to some of the other gougers out there.

I hate compo-fraud-culture with a passion.

Out for a fun run....GTFO:mad:

Leo, get off boards and do something about Brexit will ya

FlipperThePriest

Paulw wrote: »

Who asked you to get release forms signed?

The guy organising the event. Tbf, it was his first time doing something like this and it may have been just overkill, lack of experience/covering all bases. I hadn't much experience shooting in public either so I just went along with it. Nobody had a problem on the day either way, I was just curious though.

challengemaster

faceman wrote: »

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.

Wait wait wait... you're contradicting yourself. She has no grounds to do anything so why would you bother removing the photos or deleting them?

AFAIK - The OP isn't required to do any of that upon request. Doing it is a courtesy but certainly not a requirement. So long as it's not being used for profit then all ownership/copyright, and thus publishing decisions, lie solely with the photographer. They can post them on whatever social media or other online platforms they wish and are under no obligation to remove them.

Paulw

zippy84 wrote: »

The guy organising the event. Tbf, it was his first time doing something like this and it may have been just overkill, lack of experience/covering all bases. I hadn't much experience shooting in public either so I just went along with it. Nobody had a problem on the day either way, I was just curious though.

Sounds like amateur hour all around.

If I was to get release forms signed, I'd never get any photos taken. Imagine covering a 10k race with 3,000+ runners ... and wanting release forms signed? This weekend I will be covering Flavours of Fingal, and based on previous years, like 2016, lots of photos will be taken, and hundreds displayed. Most, archived to Flickr and some posted to Facebook.

faceman

challengemaster wrote: »

Wait wait wait... you're contradicting yourself. She has no grounds to do anything so why would you bother removing the photos or deleting them?

AFAIK - The OP isn't required to do any of that upon request. Doing it is a courtesy but certainly not a requirement. So long as it's not being used for profit then all ownership/copyright, and thus publishing decisions, lie solely with the photographer. They can post them on whatever social media or other online platforms they wish and are under no obligation to remove them.

She is entitled to ask for it to me removed as it's a digital image of her. He did that, thus that is all he has to do. That's what I mean.

I love Sean nos

Paulw wrote: »

This weekend I will be covering Flavours of Fingal

Must be waiting ages on the food to sign the forms.