The new M8 is a street shooter's camera...a camera to unobtrusively shoot people.

How must it be used?

When does the people photographer open him or herself up to potential legal reprisal for taking pictures without permission and when is the photographer free to shoot away?

And what are the commercial consequences of failing to get documented permission?

Fred: I recommend the following publication for the USA:

Legal Handbook for Photographers

Thank you Russell.

you can also read this. it is not maybe specific what you wanted, but has same structure.

----------

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/wr...s/pjethics.html


Photojournalism
An Ethical Approach

by
Paul Martin Lester

Thank you for this reference, Milutin. I am a landscape and architectural photographer and have not been exposed to the issues of the photojournalist/street photographer. Using the M8 to its potential requires a set of ethical principles that I haven't thought through. The material is very helpful.

It's very subjective, but personally i shoot first and then ask. Otherwise you miss the moment. With kids you can usually ask the parents and then just shoot away without them paying attention to you.

Try to avoid wearing a trenchcoat or grinning manically.

Is there more to this than my simple operative understanding: in public, no one has a legal expectation of privacy; and a photographer can photograph public goings-on from public property to his heart's content?

Legal right is different, of course, from considerations of etiquette; and it's a new ballgame should the photographer want to publish the work.

Maybe simple could actually be dangerous?

Yes, there is more to this than your simple operative understanding. Informed opinion is most always more complex.

I'm confused by this thread. The Leica is an old camera and was used by the world's greatest photojournalist. You think H C-B or Capa got model releases? Of course you can photograph a person in public and publish their image for an EDITORIAL purpose. To sell the image for an ad is another question.

Laws change from country to country, and from state to state within the US.

Better check a reliable source for your area of interest.

Not everyone knows (or cares) what the law is about having their photo taken. Remember, the law may be on yourside, even if you end up with a broken camera or face. ("You might be right. Dead right.")

I guess you have to decide for yourself the relative risks.

Well, interestingly enough, the privacy laws in France are such that an image of you belongs to you. When it became apparent that some of these images were worth money, the French lawyers got into to the act on behalf of various plaintiffs. For example, this image by Robert Dosineau was wildly successful as a poster - hanging in "every" college dorm room in France and elsewhere. Nine people sued, claiming they were one of the couple in the photo, including the woman who actually was. Dosineau had been doing a series on lovers in the Paris streets for a magazine and, being the wily hustler he was, increased his success rate by hiring some young unemployed actors for the shots. And, he kept the contracts he had executed for the nearly 50 years of elapsed time between shot and lawsuit. The suits were all thrown out and the actual woman had to console herself by selling her copy of the vintage print for $244,000 at auction. Willy Ronis, on the other hand had taken a photo of a woman in front of her flower shop, a copy of which she proudly displayed in her window for years. This didn't, however, deter her from successfully suing Ronis and his agency years later.

I think in Quebec the law is somethign along those lines, but feel free to re-educate me if you know better.

My understanding was that you needed permission from anyone who is visibly discernable in the image, regardless of the use of the photo.

I'd love to know where I can get more info on this from a Canadian standpoint, as I have become increasingly interested in "people" photography, but can't afford a broken camera, face or law.

First, I would read the law.

Second, I would check something like West's to see how the courts interpret the law.

Might call a news paper to see how their photographers do it.

Might check with other photographers and publications.

Good luck. When you get the real answer, write a book.

"The LAW (in plain english) For Photographers" by Leonard D. Duboff



Once in Toronto was contemplating the purchase of a lens, so the store manager/sales clerk told me I could go outside the premises & fire away. Yikes, even though I didn't purposely take images of people some where getting annoyed even though store manager was standing next to me.
I don't think it's what type of camera you have, rather, to be a street photographer, it's all in your personality......and unfortunately, I don't have it.
Pity, I'd love to do that kind of photography,
jj

All this makes me appreciate landscape photography all the more. Mountains rarely sue.

Eric

Howie, thanks for your insight.

The Canadian Criminal code is a rather volumous tome, and as mentioned, laws can vary province to province, so perhaps in your recomendation you could be a little more specific which "law" I should be reading.

Secondly, I don't know what West's is, and you haven't explained it.

You're right, I havent thought yet to call papers to find out more, but that has more to do with my reading this topic, and seeing an opportunity to find out more by doing exactly what you recommend in your fourth point - asking other photographers.

Finally, if I were to get the real answer (unlikely, as judges see the laws in different ways and precidents are set and reset as time passes) a book would be out of date very quicky for the very reasons I just listed.

I expect a lot of success with people photography has to do with the "soft skills" of personality. I think generally I have a fairly winning personality, but I am quite shy when I don't know people, which is likely something I will need to overcome if I want to be successful at this.

Again, for those who were kind enough to respond in a constructive way, I thank you.

I would start with the province of interest. Then maybe Canada. While the law can get convoluted and lengthy, use the index to narrow your search. In the US, there are law firms, like Jacoby and Myers, that are cheap and can provide good answers to specific questions.

West's is a set of US (at least) law books that provide Appelate Court decisions, by state I think. West's is usually pretty recent. They are useful if the law isn't clear on it's face.

The value of people skills cannot be underestimated. You could be right legally and still find yourself crossing some folks, even law officers and prosecutors. Not all know all the laws they are enforcing. I have seen cases where people are arrested and taken to trial only to have the case tossed out because no law was broken. More trouble than you likely want. Best not even get the law involved.

Use common sense, don't offend people, and remember you do not always have to get what you are legally entitled to. It is OK to be right and just walk away without protest.

It is similar, but not quite the same in Norway.

Basically, the photograph always belongs to the artist.

But whether the photographer may use the image freely depends on a few factors that are legislated. If you photograph a person, you cannot reproduce or display that photograph in public without express permission, unless:

a) the picture is of current and public interest
b) the picture is of lesser importance than the main content of the image
c) the image reproduces crowds, marches in open air or situations of public interest
d) a sample of the picture as is usual is displayed as promotion for the photographer's business and the person depicted doesn't explicitly forbid it
e) the image is used as a portrait in a biographical work or e.g. in an APB or evidence in a criminal investigation

These rights remain in effect until the person depicted is dead, and for 15 years thereafter. So if you want to secure the rights to a photograph, you need to ask both the photographer and the person depicted.

Point b) is rather fuzzy, and leaves a lot of headroom. In Norwegian tradition, though, permission may be granted implicitly, verbally, on paper, hewn in stone, or whatever, as long as it's granted.

But if we look at Michael's photograph of the shoemaker in Shanghai, China, he mentions in LLVJ #14 that he was waved off when he was noticed. In Norway, that would have to be interpreted as "no, I didn't want my photograph taken", and Michael would've had to ask express permission to use that image in the future. However, the way it was used in the LLVJ would probably be okay.

It's a balancing act between privacy and copyright, and it depends a lot on local culture.

If privacy is considered important, as it traditionally has been in Norway (and obviously France), then you'll need permission.

YMMV, check your Lonely Planet or similar travel guide, too.

Jan: Thanks for adding the information about the Norwegian laws. Are surveillance cameras as plentiful in Norway as they have become in the USA? Here we are all subjects of that kind of "street photography" around the clock in urban/suburban areas.

I am supprised no one has mentioned the photographers right by bert krages yet. In the US this is carried by many many photogs whenever they are in a public space.

They are becoming plentiful, at least, and many of these are probably in violation of various laws on privacy and registry regulations. It is considered a Problem.

I’ll assume that’s a “style” question, as opposed to a legal question, which has been covered in the previous posts.

My photography is primarily for NGOs and in many ways is similar to street photography and many ways different. For me [read: my style, not necessarily yours], its about how you interact with people. I find it more rewarding to be “involved, but detached.”

Personally, I error on the side of doing what’s best for the people involved. It’s a flaw of sort, so I’ll never be a great photojournalist, but it has gotten me entrance into places that have been personally very rewarding. Photographing medical care in the rural farm areas of South Africa was one example for me. I was afforded the privilege of photographing some of the workers in their home setting with no angst on either side. Not only did I get shots I never thought I would get, but the time spent was personally rewarding.
[Please no remarks or flaming, the intricacies of South African culture / farming / peoples / politics is complex—this is not the place].

I’ve been told there are two types street photographers: “covert” and “open”. The covert photographer doesn’t want to be seen; wants to snap without anybody knowing. Then there’s the “open” type. People know he/she is there, but eventually they forget about him/her and continue on. If they are really perturbed about a cameras presence, then they will make it known. At that point it’s usually better to move on. Otherwise, I outwait them. Eventually, people get tired of watching you and they go back to what they were doing.

Another technique is to strike up a conversation with the group and ask permission. Many times, they’ll respond, “no problem”. Afterwards, if you think you may use the shot—keep the conversation going and ask them to sign a photo release. The great thing about digital is you can show them the picture. As they are filling out the photo releases, ask them if they want a print (don’t forget to send them one!); these are great ways to break down the barriers between you and the subjects.

These are just a few thoughts. I hope you find them useful.

Rich P
NGOphotographer

Thank you Rich.