Is It Rude To Take Pictures Of Strangers?

[zev_steinhardt]

I recently bought a new digital camera and have been practicing in order to be able to master exposure, shutter speed, aperture, etc. For today's lesson I went down to the beach. Most of my shots were of birds (trying to capture them in flight, taking off, landing, etc.) and pets along the boardwalk.

At one point, however, there were a group of people who were playing ball on the beach. None were wearing anything particularly revealing... it was just a group of friends playing. Figuring it was a good chance to capture some "action" shots, I began shooting some pictures of them.

After a while, one of them came over and asked that I stop taking pictures. Not wanting to offend, I complied with their request.

However, that got me thinking... it is considered rude to take pictures of strangers (when they have not explicitly said not to, of course)? Or is there a limit (one or two pix are okay, but too many would be rude)? Is there some sort of guideline? I certainly don't want to be rude, but, on the other hand, I want to photograph more than simply my family and friends.

Zev Steinhardt

[Anaamika]

It's really kind of creepy and I would definitely wonder why you felt you needed to take pictures of me and my friends. I mean, there's been discussions all over the boards about the legality, and I don't think I could stop you, but at the very least I'd eventually quit my game and walk away from the weird creepy pervert.

Just my two cents. I'm female, btw, I'm sure that contributes.

[Frustrated Wonderer]

That specific circumstance is not so bad, but it is kinda weird. Perhaps you should tell them WHY you want to take the picture and then ask for there permission.

Of course taking picture of individual people is always sketchy.

[Garfield226]

I would find it a bit odd if I was in public and a stranger took a photo that was unquestionably of me. If he took a bunch, I would find it more odd. Exception: If I was in a touristy-type area or near something which might be photo-worthy (like architecture), and I could justify it by thinking you were shooting past me, then it wouldn't be as strange.

Aside: This is actually what I had the biggest problem with in my photojournalism class. I felt entirely too uncomfortable taking pictures of strangers in public, then approaching them to take their name and information (even though I had the explanation that I was in photojournalism class and this town has TWO daily newspapers and at least one photojournalism class each semester, and the town's not that big, so folks are probably used to it). I got over it, at least enough to finish the class. Never had anyone confront me about it though.

On preview: There's really no discussion about legality -- if they're in a public place, the act of you taking the photos is unquestionably legal. Publishing is where you would run into any problems (and then not always).

[Joey P]

It might seem kind of weird to others, but "street photography" is making a comeback (or at least it was a few months ago, so you're not the only one.

[Nature's Call]

Odd, maybe, but under most circumstances I would say it is not rude. It makes some feel uncomfortable, but some people are flattered - sometimes even hamming it up.

I like to take photos of interesting people when I travel to complement the interesting buildings and landmarks. If I'm being unobtrusive, I see no problem - I usually use a long lens. If a photographer went up to one person and goes all paparazzi on them - yeah, that's rude. A snap or two - meh.

FYI and FWIW, I carry a copy of The Photographer's Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) for the so-far-hypothetical time I simply must have that shot but someone protests. In a case like you describe I wouldn't invoke it. But I've taken pics post-9/11 of the Ambassador Bridge (linking Detroit MI to Windsor ON) and had it in my camera bag just in case some security conscious someone had a problem with me scoping out an international traderoute.

[Sal Ammoniac]

It's very situational. For example, riding in the Swan Boats in the Boston Public Gardens, you're almost always going to be in some stranger's picture. But that's one end of the spectrum, and working down from there, it gets dicier and dicier. On the beach, if you took a panoramic view that happened to include some strangers, it probably would not be an issue. But zeroing in on one group of people, and taking more than one picture -- well, I think most of us would agree that's intrusive, and a little risky as well.

[Autolycus]

To act as the chorus, it really depends on the situation. Definitely dont take pictures of Amish people though. While they may not think you're stealing their soul, it's definitely very rude.

[Beware of Doug]

If you find the person at all sexually attractive, that's a good sign you should not be contemplating snapping their picture - unless you've got the crust to tell them so.

[lavenderviolet]

Personally, I enjoy having my pic taken even though I'm arguably not very photogenic ;) so I would not care much if some random photographer was taking photos on a scenic location and happened to snap one or two of me, but I would probably find it weird if the photographer seemed to be paying special attention to me (or the group I was with). It might seem like you were spying on them or something.
If you really want to be able to take pics of other folks without controversy, I'd bet if you posted an ad on your local Craig's list you could find some bored folks who would think it was fun to meet up with you at the beach or whatever and do some modeling for you (might meet some weirdos that way too, but at least it seems a little less likely to lead to trouble than snapping pics of someone without their consent).

[Idlewild]

I wouldn't care, but then I'm a very amateur photographer myself (very!) and I work on the assumption that if I'm in public they have every right to do so.

An aside: a while back my husband and I were out taking scenic views of Boston and this very extroverted guy bounced up and said "Hey, you can take my picture!" and I did, and he bounced off again without leaving contact info or anything so I could get the photo to him. I love that photo, he has such a great expression on his face.

[mhendo]

Well, as someone who is interested in photography, and in the history of street and documentary photography, i don't think it's rude or creepy at all. If you're in a public place, you're fair game.

That said, however, some people can get irrationally paranoid about this sort of thing, and some might even get violent, so prudence suggests that you should evaluate each particular situation and decide whether your right to take the pictures is worth asserting in the face of hostile subjects. The assholes might not have a legal leg to stand on, but that's not much consolation when you're nursing a broken camera or a broken nose.

[Zebra]

In that situation, I would have just said that I had a new camera and was breaking it in. Show them some of the shots.

When I do take photos of people in public, I do try to be not noticed by them while I'm doing it. It usually makes a better photo, or at least the sort of photo I like.

[Frank]

I am a twelve year old female, ...
My apologies, BABYMAC, but we do not allow posters under the age of thirteen. Please, come back next year. We won't count this against your guest membership.

[SparrowHawk]

It might not be rude, but it could be deadly (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007705040371). A man taking a picture at the beach out here was punched by the guy who didn't want to be photographed.

[Autolycus]

It might not be rude, but it could be deadly (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007705040371). A man taking a picture at the beach out here was punched by the guy who didn't want to be photographed.

Sorry for the hijack, but reading that article got a little piece of dust in my eye. What a terrible thing to have happen to what seems to have been such a cool guy =(

[Beware of Doug]

The perp seems to have gotten the idea that deadly force, not "HEY, QUIT SNAPPIN!", is the proper response to an unexpected shutterbug. Perhaps a devotee of Sean Penn gone a little wrong - more likely, though, a likkered-up musclehead looking for someone to hurt.

[Sapo]

Just like looking at someone is ok, but staring is rude, there are limits to taking pictures of people on public places. A quick snap is fine, getting in their faces or staying there for too long is rude with or without the camera, I think

[Hostile Dialect]

I've always adhered to a one-picture-per-person rule, like the girl in Shortbus. She was offensive about it, but I think if you're nonchalant and you don't sneak around like you're trying to get away with something most people would be cool with it, right? I mean, I'd like to think I would be.

One of my favorite pictures I've taken of a stranger. (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/11270442/?qo=8&q=by%3Aloosidd&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps)

[Harmonious Discord]

Some stranger taking multiply pictures of me, would make me think somebody will be putting them on a fetish site.

[2gigch1]

I think I would have to add a caveat about how bizzarre or extroverted the subject is. For 'blend in the background' types of folks I would hesitate to make an effort to capture an image. For people who have made a real effort to stand out, such as a beauty queen, punker, or otherwise extroverted appearence, I would not hesitate to snap away.

Note this is a social choice kind of thing by the subject, not to be confused with interesting subjects by circumstance, such as victims of poverty, crime or medical condition, who are not fair game...

[Annie-Xmas]

I'm not good looking, but I have a knack for putting together very strange and good looking outfits. I've been asked by people if they can take my photo, and I always say yes. If I notice someone taking my photo without asking, I confront them about it.

Ask, then shoot.

[Wee Bairn]

Regular person, ask first.

Person dressed up or doing something in a tourist area specifically so they will be photographed, ask, and pay as well.

[Velma]

I recently had an instance where my family was out in a public place watching a band. A street festival type situation. Later I found that someone had taken photos of my husband and 2 year old son and posted them on her flicker site, with some caption like "look how cute" or something. I felt a little invaded, and the description on her site that day was about how she went to this street fair and saw a band, blah blah blah. It really came across as if the photos were of her own family, and I was creeped out by it. There were comments about how my son looked and what shirt he was wearing, etc.

After investigating around her site a little, I figured out that she was an amatuer photographer (and a pretty good one) and liked to take photos out on the street, and that most of the people who came to her site were photographers as well, and not likely to misinterpret the photos as anything else. So I felt a little better then, but I still thought it was odd at best and maybe verging on unsettling. I understand if a photographer is taking candids at a public event, but taking multiple close ups of my son and posting them online bothered me. If she would have approached us at the event and said she was a photographer and would we mind if she took a few photos I would have given her permission though. I e-mailed her (politely, even praising her work and asking for a copy of the photo) but she never responded to me.

[mhendo]

If she would have approached us at the event and said she was a photographer and would we mind if she took a few photos I would have given her permission though. I e-mailed her (politely, even praising her work and asking for a copy of the photo) but she never responded to me.The thing is, approaching you might have ruined the shot she wanted. Anyone who has taken shots of people knows that the results you get from candids are very different from the shots you get with posed subjects. Integral to good candid shots is the fact that the subject is unaware of the photographer.

As for her not emailing you, one explanation might be that she has no proof that you are the family of the people in her shots.

[Troy McClure SF]

Yeah, I'm pretty timid IRL, so I haven't done much shooting of strangers, but when it gets down to it, anything in public is fair game. I'd likely stop if someone objected. It also kinda depends on where you are. I wouldn't shoot strangers (or much of anything) inside a church, for instance, but if I'm at some kind of Web 2.0 gathering, like a Flickr or Yelp meetup, I wouldn't be shy about shooting any/everything.

And hey, if you're bold enough, even if the subject is unhappy about being photographed it can work in your favor (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/136819944/).

[JpnDude]

I run a fansite for a popular theme park here in Japan. I've taken thousands of pictures and lots of video that included park guests. I have posted many of them on my site. In the seven-plus years I've had my site, I've never had any complaints or claims from anyone. In fact, I've had plenty of requests for copies of pictures.

[Rigamarole]

Once I was out on my university's campus (a private university, actually) taking pictures of anything that looked interesting. I happened upon a group of students having a little dance party out in one of the quads complete with smoke machine, laser lights, etc. I pulled out my camera and took a few shots when one girl from the group approached me and sort of snarkily asked, "Are you from the yearbook?"

I replied, "No." and offered no further explanation, request for permission, or comment. Unsure of how to respond to that she just said "Oh." and went back to her group. :D

Another time I saw a woman doing some very interesting stretches that really showed off her figure brilliantly in a very public area (Venice beach, actually). This time I did ask for permission, and she denied, stating she was too shy. :rolleyes: I wish I had just taken it.

[Geek Mecha]

Whenever I go out, I like to blend in with the crowd. I realize I'm out in public and I have no expectation of privacy, but I do cherish my anonymity. I would lose that if you took my picture.

I don't consider it rude to take my picture, but it would make me uncomfortable. If I noticed you aiming a camera at me, I'd leave the area, if possible.

[theater in a crowded fire]

I'm a reporter and a photographer for a small daily paper. When I'm out at big public event, such as a fair, concert or festival I'm always looking for that one great candid shot of the cute kid, romantic couple, etc. I typically won't say anything to the people I'm shooting before I take the shot, because I'm after that moment when they're just being themselves and enjoying the event. I do try to make it a point to have my press ID visible in case someone notices me shooting and wonders who is taking pictures of them or their kid and I always make it a point to go up to the person after I've got the shot and explain who I am and what I'm doing. Most people are pretty cool and happy to have their picture taken.
I realize my experience is quite different from the OP's question, however. If I wasn't a pro, but was looking to get some experience with this type of photography I'd definitely start out by talking to the potential subject beforehand or immediately after I'd made my first couple of shots.
Most of the time, I think people would be pretty understanding about what you're doing, especially if you offer to send them copies of your shots. Just be polite and honest about why you're taking their photo and if they say they're not interested, be polite and move on to the next opportunity. Practice makes perfect and it sounds like you're on the right track in trying to learn by shooting as much as possible. The only wasted shot is the one you missed because you didn't take it or weren't prepared.

[Troy McClure SF]

Another reason not to ask permission is time. Take this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/troymccluresf/172463795/). By the time I got over to that couple and gotten their permission, the sun may have disappeared. Plus, they might be gone two seconds after I start toward them, and I don't get the shot. Or they get self-conscious and leave.

And you'll never get a shot of anyone on a bicycle (http://www.flickr.com/photos/troymccluresf/172463949/in/set-72157594173645369/).

[Sampiro]

My apologies, BABYMAC, but we do not allow posters under the age of thirteen. Please, come back next year. We won't count this against your guest membership.

DAMN IT FRANK! I was about to ask her for pictures. (When's it ever going to be more relevant?)

In most tourist communities it's impossible not to take pics of strangers. I'd say a rule of thumb would be if you're actually focusing on the stranger and said stranger isn't obviously wanting attention (i.e. a prom queen or gay rights dancers on a float) get permission first.

I was in a bookstore last Christmas and opened a very nice full-color photography book on Alabama (http://www.amazon.com/Home-Sweet-Alabama/dp/158173493X/ref=sr_1_1/102-1841810-7728927?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180559187&sr=1-1). I was really surprised when I was flipping through the Gulf Coast section and saw a large color pic of my sister and her husband. I got the book for her for Christmas, and she was a bit shocked as well. She remembered the photo, knew the photographer (a Syrian Christian who attended her church when on vacation) and was a bit peeved. She said she'd have gladly given permission, but she didn't like him using it without asking, and said in fact she'd have gladly sold the book in a shop she owns an interest in and cross-promoted it if he had let her know. (IIRC it didn't give her name but it did give the name of the business she owned at the time it was made.)

[Lush Puppy]

Photography enthusiast here: If they are not the actual subject of the photo, I don't ask. If they are, I ask first and then I show them the shot. I also ask them if they want a copy. This is what was also taught in my photography course.

If you want to take better candids and don't want to keep asking people if it's ok to take their photo, then get a long lens! Also, don't take too many photos of the same person and do not post those photos online without a model release.

[Velma]

Photography enthusiast here: If they are not the actual subject of the photo, I don't ask. If they are, I ask first and then I show them the shot. I also ask them if they want a copy. This is what was also taught in my photography course.

If you want to take better candids and don't want to keep asking people if it's ok to take their photo, then get a long lens! Also, don't take too many photos of the same person and do not post those photos online without a model release.

This was the key point that was missing for me. I just found it a little unsettling to discover several photos of my child posted publicly online without knowing about it first. It's not like he is one in a crowd, they are close ups of just him. And over a long enough time span that she could have asked, even after the fact. Taking a photo is one thing, posting them publicly is another.

Odder still was the fact that along with her written notes on the page, when you first go to the site it comes across like the pictures are of her own family. She talks about what she and her husband and son did that day, and there is a photo of my husband and son together.

[Antinor01]

I would find it extremely offensive to be specifically photographed without my express consent. If it was a thing where I just happened to be standing near a landmark or interesting building they wanted a shot of that would be one thing, but I find having a total stranger pick me out individually and take photos to be very rude.

I don't even like people I know taking my picture without checking in or otherwise letting me know they intend to do so. In public I may not have the legal right to refuse, but I would it show common decency to give me the option to refuse. I really don't care if you don't get the great candid shot you wanted, that isn't my problem.

Reminds me of a line from Pinks song You and ur hand. "I'm not here for your entertainment."

[Sapo]

This was the key point that was missing for me. I just found it a little unsettling to discover several photos of my child posted publicly online without knowing about it first. It's not like he is one in a crowd, they are close ups of just him. And over a long enough time span that she could have asked, even after the fact. Taking a photo is one thing, posting them publicly is another.

Odder still was the fact that along with her written notes on the page, when you first go to the site it comes across like the pictures are of her own family. She talks about what she and her husband and son did that day, and there is a photo of my husband and son together.
Agree with you all the way. Taking the pictures is ok. Publishing them and fabricating their stories is very freaky.

[Nava]

I'm not good looking, but I have a knack for putting together very strange and good looking outfits. I've been asked by people if they can take my photo, and I always say yes. If I notice someone taking my photo without asking, I confront them about it.

Ask, then shoot.

See, this is my main reason to want to take pics of strangers (as opposed to "pics that happen to have a stranger in them"), but I hate posed pictures. Sometimes I'd like to capture a gesture, the way the light shines on someone's spiked shoulders or the drape of a blouse - but if I go to the person and ask for permission, what I wanted to capture isn't there any more.

So I don't take any :(

[Hostile Dialect]

1. Take picture.
2. Walk up to subject and explain what you did and why.
3. Show them the picture, offering to delete it if they feel offended/violated.
4. Keep secret backup and share with interwebs. ;)

[Evil One]

I worked as a TV news photographer for five years. I walked around with a huge camera on my shoulder and pointed it at people in all kinds of situations. I never asked for permission because I had a job to do and I didn't want to give anyone the opportunity to slow me down. I didn't act like an intrusive ass by putting the camera in someones lap or anything, but I went about my business without hesitation.

If I were doing a "the beach is crowded" or "it's very hot today" story or something similar, I would shoot about five minutes of video, which would consist of twenty or thirty shots. I did my own editing, so I would choose the five to ten shot that would actually appear on TV, depending on the amount of video needed. Every once in a while in this situation, someone would shoot me a dirty look. This would be edited out if I wanted to use the shot. If they actually came up to me and complained, whether they made it on TV or not would depend on their behavior. If they were polite, then I would leave them out. If they entered into a pretentious display of ego or otherwise showed thier ass while pretending to be a camera-shy celebrity, then they guaranteed themselves a starring role on the news that night. And yes, I always asked someone who objected to being photographed if being on TV would put them in danger in any way. I never had anyone answer in the affirmative.

[mhendo]

I worked as a TV news photographer for five years. I walked around with a huge camera on my shoulder and pointed it at people in all kinds of situations. I never asked for permission because I had a job to do and I didn't want to give anyone the opportunity to slow me down. I didn't act like an intrusive ass by putting the camera in someones lap or anything, but I went about my business without hesitation.

If I were doing a "the beach is crowded" or "it's very hot today" story or something similar, I would shoot about five minutes of video, which would consist of twenty or thirty shots. I did my own editing, so I would choose the five to ten shot that would actually appear on TV, depending on the amount of video needed. Every once in a while in this situation, someone would shoot me a dirty look. This would be edited out if I wanted to use the shot. If they actually came up to me and complained, whether they made it on TV or not would depend on their behavior. If they were polite, then I would leave them out. If they entered into a pretentious display of ego or otherwise showed thier ass while pretending to be a camera-shy celebrity, then they guaranteed themselves a starring role on the news that night. And yes, I always asked someone who objected to being photographed if being on TV would put them in danger in any way. I never had anyone answer in the affirmative.Well, as a news photographer, you had a perfect right to shoot those people if they were in public.

But i must say, the idea that you would specifically put someone on the news just because they got angry with you, when the story was not about them as an individual, doesn't say much for your sense of news values. It's this sort of "visuals over substance" attitude that is so much of what's wrong with the modern news media.

[Evil One]

But i must say, the idea that you would specifically put someone on the news just because they got angry with you, when the story was not about them as an individual, doesn't say much for your sense of news values. It's this sort of "visuals over substance" attitude that is so much of what's wrong with the modern news media.

The shots were chosen for composition as it related to the script and for artistic value. Lets say I tilt the camera toward the sun to get the "shadow effect" of the iris closing down as people walked between the camera and the sun. I get the perfect shot. Then one of the people turns and starts giving me a hard time. I'm not an instant ass. I try to be polite. But I'm not going to give up a great shot because some airhead thinks I'm "teh stalker!" instead of a professional.

As to the attitude, here is the way many news photographers think, but will not admit.

By the time you have shot fatal accidents, funerals, fires and all other manner of events, you become desensitized. I viewed the people around me as part of the environment. A fencepost doesn't bitch when you take its picture and neither should they. Put simply, don't come up to me and perform for the camera, don't bitch when I point the camera at you, don't complain about a news story you saw last week. Just go about your business, let me shoot you and then move on to my next assignment.

[Kalhoun]

I took this one of an awesome little dude I saw in Grant Park. http://new.photos.yahoo.com/karlen1956/photo/294928804408610691/0
His parents were a little weirded out for about a second, but as soon as I oooh'd and aaah'd over him, they chilled out. However, I am a woman and am probably much less threatening than a strange man with a camera is.

Hey...it's a public place and it's your right to photograph anything you want. People who get bent out of shape need to get over themselves.

[Giles]

Here's my cute child picture. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/524146843/) He was standing in front of a stage, in a public park, in front of several hundred people, including at least 6 photographers, while the state governor was on stage giving a speech. I have no idea where his parents were, though they were probably somewhere in the crowd, but he was in a pretty public place, and I didn't see any reason to ask permission.

[Antinor01]

Hey...it's a public place and it's your right to photograph anything you want. People who get bent out of shape need to get over themselves.

Attitudes like this are part of why I don't like going out in public when I don't have to. It's also why I never pursued a music career, I wouldn't be able to handle people invading my life just because it was legal for them to do so with a camera.

[Kalhoun]

Attitudes like this are part of why I don't like going out in public when I don't have to. It's also why I never pursued a music career, I wouldn't be able to handle people invading my life just because it was legal for them to do so with a camera.
Invading in YOUR life? How do you figure? They're not hurting you. They're not even speaking to you, are they?

[Antinor01]

Invading in YOUR life? How do you figure? They're not hurting you. They're not even speaking to you, are they?

It's my face, my body, my life. They are using my image for their own purpose. I consider that an invasion.

[tomndebb]

Google (View) Zooms In Too Close for Some (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html?ei=5065&en=036c99c5b879bfb5&ex=1181275200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print) (NYT: may require free registration.

[Kalhoun]

It's my face, my body, my life. They are using my image for their own purpose. I consider that an invasion. Anyone who looks at you, sells you something, or interacts with you in any way at all is using you for their own purpose. I don't get what your problem is. That's why it's called interaction.

[pulykamell]

I used to be a newspaper and wire photographer.

Basically, to echo a lot of posters, it's situational. If I'm going to be taking pictures of somebody for an extended period of time, I might snap a couple of quick ones, approach the subject, explain who I am and what I'm doing, and go back to photographing. If I'm at a rally or other news event, it should be pretty obvious to all attending that they will be photographed, so I'll just snap away and ask for caption information where necessary.

For work-related stuff, often it was snap first, ask questions later. For my own personal work, I always ask first if I feel that the person I'm photographing may be put off or creeped out. If someone asks me not to take their picture (in a non-news context), I don't. It's just a picture. Who gives a damn. There's always another picture around the corner.

[Antinor01]

Anyone who looks at you, sells you something, or interacts with you in any way at all is using you for their own purpose. I don't get what your problem is. That's why it's called interaction.

Except it isn't interaction. Other interactions such as selling me something or having a conversation with me offer a benefit to both parties and also leaves a way for me to leave the interaction. Photographing me without my consent and using that photograph for any purpose, from putting it on a website to placing it on the evening news, is hardly interactive. That is where it crosses the line to being invasive.

[Kalhoun]

Except it isn't interaction. Other interactions such as selling me something or having a conversation with me offer a benefit to both parties and also leaves a way for me to leave the interaction. Photographing me without my consent and using that photograph for any purpose, from putting it on a website to placing it on the evening news, is hardly interactive. That is where it crosses the line to being invasive.
What if they have it hanging on their wall at home? Or in their wallet? Or in an album? (Not that I think putting it on the web is invasive. I just want to know where you draw the arbitrary line of invasiveness.)

[Antinor01]

What if they have it hanging on their wall at home? Or in their wallet? Or in an album? (Not that I think putting it on the web is invasive. I just want to know where you draw the arbitrary line of invasiveness.)

Those were meant to be examples as cited by others in this thread and not a complete catalog, the 'any purpose' part covers everything else. I find the photographing me without my consent to be the invasion, the further usage of that unconsented to photo is only an extension of the violation. (good grief, do people actually photograph strangers and carry the picture in their wallet?? That sounds uber-creepy and stalkerish to me)

I do understand that not everyone feels this way and that in the course of my life it will probably happen. That doesn't mean I have to like it and when asked my opinion I will give it.

[Kalhoun]

Those were meant to be examples as cited by others in this thread and not a complete catalog, the 'any purpose' part covers everything else. I find the photographing me without my consent to be the invasion, the further usage of that unconsented to photo is only an extension of the violation. (good grief, do people actually photograph strangers and carry the picture in their wallet?? That sounds uber-creepy and stalkerish to me)

I do understand that not everyone feels this way and that in the course of my life it will probably happen. That doesn't mean I have to like it and when asked my opinion I will give it.
I don't know what people do with their photographs. I share my photos of strangers with others and I guess I just don't understand what about it makes you feel violated.

[pulykamell]

Except it isn't interaction. Other interactions such as selling me something or having a conversation with me offer a benefit to both parties and also leaves a way for me to leave the interaction. Photographing me without my consent and using that photograph for any purpose, from putting it on a website to placing it on the evening news, is hardly interactive. That is where it crosses the line to being invasive.

Legally, photographers are not allowed to use your photograph without your consent for any purpose. For editorial purposes, yes (and there are even some caveats to that, involving minors and the such). For commercial purposes, absolutely not. To sell as stock, nope.

[Kalhoun]

Legally, photographers are not allowed to use your photograph without your consent for any purpose. For editorial purposes, yes (and there are even some caveats to that, involving minors and the such). For commercial purposes, absolutely not. To sell as stock, nope.
Cite?

[Nature's Call]

A photographer taking a picture of your face for their purpose is very, very similar to a salesman using your ears and attention for their purposes. Yes, a photo is permanent, one may argue, but your ears and your attention are a greater direct cost to you. Neither is an invasion.

Now, I get why being the subject of a stranger's shutter bug is uncomfortable. What are the photographer's motives? Not knowing invites one to fear the worst. The taking of the picture, in and of itself, is not the issue - it's knowingly putting someone in that uncomfortable position that's rude.

But what is the worst that can happen if a stranger takes my picture? They publish it. Happens all the time in newspapers with no adverse affect. He puts it on his web site? So what - where's the harm? Now, if it's accompanied with a libelous write up, or if the photo is altered in a way that compromises my reputation, well I can consider a law suit. But short of that, where's the actual (not perceived) harm? Is it really an invasion of any kind?

[Nature's Call]

Legally, photographers are not allowed to use your photograph without your consent for any purpose. For editorial purposes, yes (and there are even some caveats to that, involving minors and the such). For commercial purposes, absolutely not. To sell as stock, nope.
Anti-cite: The Photographer's Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

[Antinor01]

I don't know what people do with their photographs. I share my photos of strangers with others and I guess I just don't understand what about it makes you feel violated.

It's hard to describe really. I'm a fairly private person overall and it feels like an invasion of my space. I would liken it to a stranger sitting and staring at me or obviously listening in on my conversations. That person isn't actively causing me harm either but it feels invasive. They are coming into my life uninvited and I don't care for that.

[pulykamell]

Cite?

On reread, I think my stess of "any" may be confusing. I mean that they can't just take and use your picture for any reason they want. There's specific usages, such as commercial use, that require model releases. I can't just take a picture of you in the street and use it in a nationwide advertising campaign for Hagen-Dazs without your permission.

[pulykamell]

Anti-cite: The Photographer's Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

I am not disputing that. I'm disputing how the photographs can be used.


Legally, photographers are not allowed to use your photograph without your consent for any purpose.


Where it says "any," substitute "just any" to understand what I was trying to convey. Your cite only indicates what is lawful to photograph. Having the legal right to photograph something and how that photograph can be legally used are two different issues.

[Giles]

Legally, photographers are not allowed to use your photograph without your consent for any purpose. For editorial purposes, yes (and there are even some caveats to that, involving minors and the such). For commercial purposes, absolutely not. To sell as stock, nope.
Well, some celebrities naturally expect their photo to be taken. So, at the same event as I took a picture of a little boy, I took pictures of the state governor, the city mayor, and a lot of dancers, all performing at a free public event. Did they have any reason to think that I should not take their pictures, then post them of a public web site, with a factual description of what they were doing?

I can see problems with using them for libellous purposes (e.g., photoshopping the dancers so it looks like they are dancing naked), or for improper commercial purposes (e.g., adding a caption saying that the governor is endorsing a commercial product, when he's not). I can also see a problem with using a telephoto lens to take a picture of a person at home, where they can expect privacy. But just taking their pictures at a public event and publishing the pictures is perfectly legal.

[pulykamell]

As for cites, here is the
American Society for Media Photographers take on things (http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/):



However, the right of privacy is not absolute. In particular, the courts have long held that news reporting and social, political and economic commentary — the things the First Amendment was designed to protect — are more valuable to society than an individual’s right to be let alone. Therefore, images that are part of the public colloquy about events have usually been exempt from privacy lawsuits. In contrast, the courts have generally held that making money is distinctly less valuable to society than the right to be let alone.

Thus, privacy issues typically arise when an image is used for purposes of trade or advertising. That is, it’s not the picture, but how it is used that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is printed in a newspaper, shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.

Therefore, if you are on an advertising assignment, you will need to collect releases from every person in your shots. News assignments are a little trickier. You are always better off if you have permission to photograph your subjects and can prove it. But it’s not always possible to get permission and, in the U.S., you can report the news without it. Lacking a release, however, you are limited in how you can license the image later on.

[pulykamell]

Well, some celebrities naturally expect their photo to be taken. So, at the same event as I took a picture of a little boy, I took pictures of the state governor, the city mayor, and a lot of dancers, all performing at a free public event. Did they have any reason to think that I should not take their pictures, then post them of a public web site, with a factual description of what they were doing?

I can see problems with using them for libellous purposes (e.g., photoshopping the dancers so it looks like they are dancing naked), or for improper commercial purposes (e.g., adding a caption saying that the governor is endorsing a commercial product, when he's not). I can also see a problem with using a telephoto lens to take a picture of a person at home, where they can expect privacy. But just taking their pictures at a public event and publishing the pictures is perfectly legal.

Once again, I am not arguing that. Hence the "editorial use" caveat. Remember, I do this for a living, so I know what publishers ask of me. Business Week won't ask me for a release. Any stock photo agency will, or will severely limit my ability to sell a photo.

[Nature's Call]

I submitted too soon. I also wanted to add this link (http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html).

You want to get model releases so as to make the photos you sell more marketable to the universe of buyers who may wish to publish these photos in a way that would require a release. The common perception among photographers is that you need a release to protect yourself. This isn't the case. As long as you disclose the status of your images to licensees, you aren't at risk. However, the licensee may not license images from you that aren't released, and that's why you want to get them. As discussed ad nasueum in this chapter, you don't need to "worry" about having releases so much as you need to be sure you understand the nature of how the law works and what your responsibilities are. With that, let's discuss the major components of a release.

In short, the idea behind a model's release is not because the subject rights to his/her face trumps the photographer's right to make a buck. It's because without a release a photographer limits his/her market. Some companies won't buy your photo without a release, maybe because of their union agreements, or fear of litigation, or whatever reason.

If someone snaps my picture while I'm in a public place and sells it for $1 million, there's nothing I can do to stop the photographer, and likely nothing I can do to get my cut. If the photographer in that case doesn't at least give me $100, I would find it extremely rude :D

[KneadToKnow]

After a while, one of them came over and asked that I stop taking pictures. Not wanting to offend, I complied with their request.
On behalf of people everywhere who dislike having their picture taken, thank you.

I am constantly amazed at the number of people who take pictures of other people without asking their permission, or (to my mind) worse yet, ask permission and then act as if the only acceptable answer to that question is "yes" and act as if they have been personally attacked if the answer is "no."

To those people (not necessarily the OP):
Some of us do not like having our pictures taken. Some of us have not known you long enough to tell you why. If you point your camera at us, and we respond as though you were pointing a loaded gun, please spare us both a lot of grief, and pick on someone else. Thank you.

[pulykamell]

Some companies won't buy your photo without a release, maybe because of their union agreements, or fear of litigation, or whatever reason.

It's fear of liability, and it's addressed in the ASMP article and privacy lawsuits have gone through the courts and found against the photographer in cases of people's photographs being used for commercial use. I don't have the court cases in front of me now, but these have been tested.

There is also the right of publicity, which applies to celebrities. I can't just take a picture of, say, Angelina Jolie and start selling a bunch of products with her image on it. Was it legal for me to take her picture? Most likely. Will I get my ass sued off or at least a cease and desist if she gets wind of it, you betcha.

So, once again, your right to photograph someone and how you can use that photo are two very distinct things, legally.

[mhendo]

If you point your camera at us, and we respond as though you were pointing a loaded gun...You'll put your hands in the air?

Return fire?

Piss your pants?

[KneadToKnow]

Piss your pants?
You're getting warm.

[Kalhoun]

It's hard to describe really. I'm a fairly private person overall and it feels like an invasion of my space. I would liken it to a stranger sitting and staring at me or obviously listening in on my conversations. That person isn't actively causing me harm either but it feels invasive. They are coming into my life uninvited and I don't care for that.
You know, you could look at it as you walking into their life uninvited. I mean, we're talking public spaces here. There is no expectation of privacy. People will look at you, walk within your eyesight, hear things you say, etc.

[pulykamell]

I submitted too soon. I also wanted to add this link (http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html).



In short, the idea behind a model's release is not because the subject rights to his/her face trumps the photographer's right to make a buck. It's because without a release a photographer limits his/her market. Some companies won't buy your photo without a release, maybe because of their union agreements, or fear of litigation, or whatever reason.

If someone snaps my picture while I'm in a public place and sells it for $1 million, there's nothing I can do to stop the photographer, and likely nothing I can do to get my cut. If the photographer in that case doesn't at least give me $100, I would find it extremely rude :D

And to clarify even more, to be absolutely precise. You can sell your photograph to anyone you want. However, whoever buys that photograph will not be able to commercially use it (as in an advertising campaign) without a model release.

Also, I use some of my photographs for self-advertising. I have to get a model release signed to protect myself because I use images of people I have shot on my website for my own commercial use. Without a model release, I could, if someone were so inclined to, be litigated against for such use.

[Kalhoun]

On reread, I think my stess of "any" may be confusing. I mean that they can't just take and use your picture for any reason they want. There's specific usages, such as commercial use, that require model releases. I can't just take a picture of you in the street and use it in a nationwide advertising campaign for Hagen-Dazs without your permission.
What if you want to put that photograph in a gallery? Or what if you do an artistic treatment to the photo (to use Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe photos, for instance). If this person is not a "famous personality" per se, can I alter the image and then use it? Where is the line drawn?

[Antinor01]

You know, you could look at it as you walking into their life uninvited. I mean, we're talking public spaces here. There is no expectation of privacy. People will look at you, walk within your eyesight, hear things you say, etc.

Those things are all true. There is a difference between accidental and intentional though. The person who happens to catch something I say as they walk by is not the same as the person that sits there looking at me while I have a conversation. By the same token, the person who happens to catch my in their photo of the Tonight Show studio is not the same as the person who specifically chooses to photograph me. I'm not sure how else to explain my meaning here. The OP asked for opinions on if it was rude to photograph strangers and I have explained why I feel it is.

[pulykamell]

What if you want to put that photograph in a gallery? Or what if you do an artistic treatment to the photo (to use Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe photos, for instance). If this person is not a "famous personality" per se, can I alter the image and then use it? Where is the line drawn?

Talk to your lawyer. I do not know exactly where the line is drawn, as I don't deal with fine art photography. If you're interested, relevant reading can be found here (http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm).

[Nature's Call]

And to clarify even more, to be absolutely precise. You can sell your photograph to anyone you want. However, whoever buys that photograph will not be able to commercially use it (as in an advertising campaign) without a model release.
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. Someone as a photographer has very loosely fettered rights to take pictures, use them personally however they see fit, and sell them. The buyer of these photos, as a publisher has more to worry about. If the photographer switches hats and acts a their own publisher, they also switch worry-sets.

[furt]

A propos
Three weeks later, Stokke has decided that control is essentially beyond her grasp. Instead, she said, she has learned a distressing lesson in the unruly momentum of the Internet. A fan on a Cal football message board posted a picture of the attractive, athletic pole vaulter. A popular sports blogger in New York found the picture and posted it on his site. Dozens of other bloggers picked up the same image and spread it. Within days, hundreds of thousands of Internet users had searched for Stokke's picture and leered.

The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

[pulykamell]

I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. Someone as a photographer has very loosely fettered rights to take pictures, use them personally however they see fit, and sell them. The buyer of these photos, as a publisher has more to worry about. If the photographer switches hats and acts a their own publisher, they also switch worry-sets.

One more caveat. You have to make sure that the publisher you sell it agrees to indemnify you against any damage from the picture. This is quite often not the case, so it still ends up being your ass on the line.

Cover. Your. Ass.

More info: (http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/FAQ2.php)


Q: If I take a picture of a seedy neighborhood and a magazine editor writes a caption describing it as a red light district, can I be sued for defamation by someone shown in the picture?

A: Yes, which is why your paperwork with the magazine has to make it clear that there is no model release (if there is none). Ideally, the magazine should agree to indemnify the photographer against any damage from publishing the picture, since the magazine is the one that controls the use of the photo, and it is the use — not the photograph — that creates the liability. Unfortunately for photographers, in today’s world, that seldom happens.


And, having looked at contracts even for editorial publications, I can absolutely attest that the publisher almost always invariably wants to pass the buck to you, the photographer, if they are sued because of your photographs. You have to negotiate that clause out, or assess your risk of being sued.

[Kalhoun]

Talk to your lawyer. I do not know exactly where the line is drawn, as I don't deal with fine art photography. If you're interested, relevant reading can be found here (http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm).
Hmmm...I am concerned more with fine art photography; I can understand how publication (particularly with an accompanying text) could be an issue in the case of magazine photography. This portion of your cite leans toward what you were saying:

In a similar case, Clayman v Bernstein, 38 Pa D & C 543, (1940), a doctor took photographs of a patient while the patient was semi-concious. This court likewise found in favor of the plaintiff patient. The doctor claimed that an invasion of privacy was not present without publication of the photos or other improper use but the court disagreed. The court stated:

that an individual has the right to decide whether that which is his shall be given to the public and not only to restrict and limit but also to withhold absolutely his talents, property, or other subjects of the right of privacy from all dissemination, that the facial characteristics or peculiar cast of one's features, whether normal or distorted, belong to the individual and could not be reproduced without his permission, that even the photographer who was authorized to take a portrait was not justified in making or retaining additional copies for himself, and that unlike the law of libel which required publication to a second person, one's right to privacy could be invaded by a single human agency. The court explained that the patient's right to decide whether her facial characteristics should be recorded for another's benefit or by reason of another's capriciousness had been violated, that the scope of the authorization defined the extent of the acts necessary to constitute a violation, if the patient had consented to have her photograph taken only for the doctor's private files certainly he would have had no right to exhibit it to others without her permission, so, the court queried, could it be said that his rights were equally extensive when even that limited consent had not been given? Moreover, the court continued, if the film had been developed by one other than the doctor himself, even though the negative had not been printed, the mere development would constitute publication even if the established standards of the laws of libel were adopted, and the taking of the photograph for the purported purpose of establishing a medical record gave rise to a presumptive intent not only to develop the film but to print the negative and exhibit the print. In rejecting the argument that a physician was privileged to take photographs of his private patients without their consent as part of his medical record, the court said that it might be conceded that to an extent there was an implied waiver of the right of privacy in the relationship of physician and patient, but that there could never be a waiver, either expressed or implied, of any right without knowledge and consent and any such waiver was limited thereby. Phillip E. Hassman, J.D., 86 A.L.R.3d 374, (1996).

However, this part seems to support what I was saying:

In many cases alleging intrusion upon an individual's solitude or seclusion, the plaintiff's case is lost when the defendant shows the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy and / or when the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant's alleged intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person.

So...if I'm at an outdoor concert and I see Antinor in an interesting stance and take a picture, he probably wouldn't be able to persuade a jury that any harm was done.

If I were to recreate that photo on the side of a building, with no text or implication other than artistic merit, and if I don't make any money off it, does he have a case?

[Lush Puppy]

Well, this whole business isn't really about the law, is it? The question is if it is rude or not. I could subject you all to my horribly loud and out of tune singing on the subway but I don't because I don't want to:


annoy you
encroach on any of your liberties
make you a captive audience member


For the record, I absolutely hate having my photo taken by anyone (amateurs and pros). I even quietly move out of the group photo shots during birthdays and whatnot.

[Kalhoun]

Well, with regard to rude, I'd say not. At least, not in a public, anonymous setting. I think that if someone at the birthday party doesn't want their picture taken, well...I think it's strange but I'd abide by their wishes.

[Lush Puppy]

Well, I admit I'm strange, but not liking my photograph taken is not the reason. ;)

And I am hardly alone. I can always count on 2 or 3 people in the group to maneuver out of the shot too. OTOH, I have a handful of friends who are always camera-ready and will jump over tables to get into every shot.

Different strokes.

[mhendo]

Well, this whole business isn't really about the law, is it? The question is if it is rude or not. I could subject you all to my horribly loud and out of tune singing on the subway but I don't because I don't want to:


annoy you
encroach on any of your liberties
make you a captive audience member
But how do those apply in this case?

The only one that's really germane, it seems to me, is the first one. Sure, being photographed might annoy some people, but i'm not going to stop taking photos in public places just because some of the people who end up in the shots might not want to be in them.

It might surprise you to know this, but there are plenty of times when it might appear as though a camera is being pointed at you, but you are not even in the shot. This is especially true with longer lenses. On other occasions, you might be in the shot, but a very small and insignificant part of it. If i stand in the middle of Union Square in New York and take a picture with a 28mm lens, there could be dozens, even hundreds of people in the shot, but the picture might not actually be of any of those people. Many people take pictures of crowds just to give an impression of the crowded space itself; many others take pictures of interesting places that just happen to have people in them. If you can arrange to remove all the people from the walkways of the Brooklyn Bridge so i can take a picture of the bridge alone, i'd be very happy for the opportunity, but until then the people who end up in my shot will just have to live with it.

Perhaps you could inform me, also, precisely what liberties of yours i am encroaching on when i operate my own property (my camera) in a public space.

And precisely what makes you a captive in this scenario? If you think you are being framed for a photograph, and don't want to be in it, just move away or turn away. Unless you're some notorious celebrity, and the photographer is a member of the paparazzi, it's highly unlikely they would follow you. I know i wouldn't stalk someone who was walking away from me.

[Kalhoun]

Most people don't even know their picture is being taken. Just think of all those images out there. Everyone is probably in someone's photo album, unbeknownst to them.

I think (mostly) anonymous shots of human subjects makes for great art. And I believe that interacting in public spaces amounts to tacit agreement that someone may want to capture a moment in that space and you might be a part of it.

[pulykamell]

Well, this whole business isn't really about the law, is it?

I think it's a valid offshoot of the main question.

As to your question, Kalhoun, I really don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but the general advice given to photographers is when in doubt, get a model release. Unless you know your photograph will only be used in an editorial setting, model release whatever you can. I don't think you'd be in trouble for displaying candids in an art gallery but, then again, I'm not a lawyer.

And even if you're right, it doesn't mean you might not get sued anyway. Less chance of that happening if you have a release.

Like I said, I don't think you'll get in trouble in an art gallery, but I have to give you the 100% safe answer to be sure, unless some lawyers can chime in who deal in this.

[Lush Puppy]

mhendo, as a trained photographer, I lean towards respecting the privacy and personal space of others. And no, it doesn't surprise me to learn that just because a lens is pointed in my general direction, does not mean I am in the shot. And vice versa, it doesn't surprise me to learn that even when the lens isn't pointed at me (http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Voyeur-Right-Angle-Canon/dp/B000F49052), I can be in the shot.

Being camera shy myself, I err on the side of safety -- my own personal safety, that is ;). There are all kinds of nutjobs out there after all. And let me again stress that I do not mean taking landscape shots that people happen to be in. In my earlier post, I was talking about shooting a person with them as the subject.

And once you've got the shot, you've essentially captured them on film (or bits, if you are digital).

It might surprise a great many to know that filming up a woman's skirt (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml) is legal. It doesn't make it right.

* If I really want to get that shot of the Brookly Bridge sans people, I use a neutral density-400 filter.

[Antinor01]

But how do those apply in this case?

The only one that's really germane, it seems to me, is the first one. Sure, being photographed might annoy some people, but i'm not going to stop taking photos in public places just because some of the people who end up in the shots might not want to be in them.

Then it seems that your answer to the OP is that you know there are people who will consider it rude, but that you don't care because your photograph is more important. Is that more or less correct?

[mhendo]

Then it seems that your answer to the OP is that you know there are people who will consider it rude, but that you don't care because your photograph is more important. Is that more or less correct?Yes and no. The "yes" part of the answer comes at the end.

It's not that i don't care. It's that it should not be my responsibility to ask every single person who might appear in my pictures whether or not they consider it rude, when they are in a public place and i am in a public place. Smokers don't ask me for permission to light up when they share public space with me; cellphone users don't stop using their phones in public just because i find the phones annoying; proselytizers of various sorts don't ask my permission before they shove religious tracts or advertising fliers in my face. I accept that being in public means that i can't control everything that goes on around me, even things that i might not like very much.

As for my own photography, i'm a rank amateur, and the vast majority of my outdoor shots containing people are not of particular people, but are of public spaces that happen to have people in them. If i'm lining up a shot, there's a pretty good chance that any people in that shot are part of the crowd, rather than the main focus of the shot. If those people consider me pointing a camera in their general direction rude, that's their fucking problem.

And here's the "yes" part of the answer. When i get some money together and finally get myself a digital SLR with a long lens, i might start taking more candid shots of people in public, focused specifically on the people. And, if the shot i'm trying to get is one in which the person is oblivious to the camera, and is doing something interesting that i want to photograph, then i will take the picture without asking, and without caring very much whether the person in question would find it rude.

If the person became aware of me, and made clear that they would prefer not to have their picture taken, i would not take their picture, partly because the shot would probably no longer be available once they were aware of me anyway, and partly because i have no desire to make people uncomfortable.

But just because some people object in principle to having their photo taken, and expect complete strangers who don't know of their objections to nonetheless respect them, does not mean i will do that. The default assumption should be that you can take a picture of a person in a public place, not that you can't.

[Antinor01]

to MHendo regarding post #86...

I agree with the first part of what you said. As I noted earlier, happening to catch me in a picture that you're taking of something else I don't mind. It's an accident and accidents happen.

I do take issue with the latter part of your statement. I won't reiterate my prior statements but I find the attitude that it's their problem that you chose to photograph them to be very distasteful. I strongly disagree with your last statement, the default should never be that it's ok to take someones photo without their consent. It may currently be ok legally, but I would hope that most people would show a little more consideration.