I am not a lawyer, but this sounds dangerously close to being illegal.
How “close in” do you intend to get? It sounds like your intentions are not only obnoxious (which isn’t illegal), but also harrassing and threatening, which I hope is illegal in your area.
And IMHO, I personally think it belongs in a category which most of us Dopers don’t like: being a jerk.
Society has basic rules and expectations…Do you really think that a stranger wearing a face mask sticking a camera within a few inches of their nose is what most people expect ?
If you wear a helmet because you know in advance that your actions are so provocative that you may get attacked, then I assume that the judge will not let you claim “gee, I was just trying to be friendly, I had no idea the guy would attack me with his fists.”
If the OP is in the United States, I can probably help.
I do a lot of street photography and know quite a bit about the legalities of the genre. In the United States you are allowed to photograph anybody in public unless they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (you can’t photograph through somebody’s window, for example). Basically, if they’re in public they’re fair game.
As far as what you want to do with the photos, as long as it’s considered “art”, you can display them however you’d like and you can also sell them as art.
The only snag would come if you’re trying to use a street photo in a commercial venture (ie, in an advertisement). In that case you would have to have a model release.
That’s about it really. If it’s art, you’re fine. Go crazy and hope nobody gets too mad at you. If it’s for commercial purposes, you’ll want a release.
That all said, street photography is *really *hard to do well. “Paparazzi” type shots with a zoom lens from far away aren’t usually very good or compelling because the long focal length flattens out the image. Also, people are much more apprehensive about somebody shooting with a long lens like that. The best way would be to get something around 35mm and make yourself get as close as possible to the subject. Like I said, I do a lot of street photography but I’ve never been negatively approached by anybody I’ve shot. If they notice me take the photo, they usually turn around to see what I might have been taking a picture of because people don’t assume that it’s them. Also, don’t underestimate how far a friendly smile and wave can go. If somebody asked, I would show them the picture and offer to delete it - but it’s never happened. Worst thing that happened to me was a cop asking me what I was doing when I took pictures of them questioning a guy on the street. Even then they were fairly polite about it.
Oh, one last thing. Don’t take pictures of homeless people or street performers. Street performers because they’re easy targets and overdone and homeless for the same reasons - but also add in that it’s exploitative and really cliche. Just avoid these two types of people as subjects and you’ll already be better than 75% of street photographers out there.
I’m curious about this question because I take pictures of other people on the street all the time - I’m walking with my camera most days, and I take pictures of all the drivers breaking the laws as I see them (why not? I’m not doing anything better at the time than just walking). Someday when I get my shit together I’m planning on creating a blog where I can post all these pictures of drivers speeding through school zones and talking on cellphones.
My understanding is as has been said here - it’s legal to do this in a public setting. That said, if someone came up to me and told me to not photograph them, I would delete their photo from my camera in front of them. For my online blog, I’d probably blur any faces and license plates that can be clearly seen. I’m not taking innocuous pictures, though - I almost exclusively film people breaking the law, and people don’t like getting caught doing that.
As long as you’re in the US you’re probably fine but do some research before you travel. There are several European countries where it is illegal to take pictures of someone without their permission. Not just photos primarily of them, but to have them appear in your photo of something else entirely could still get you in trouble.
It might also be prudent to mention that “assault” is “the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.”
In other words, if you approach people in a way that makes them feel threatened, you’re guilty of assault right there (regardless of your intentions) and they have a right to protect themselves from you. If you’re in a “stand your ground” state, things could get ugly.
If some a-hole in a catcher’s mask runs up to me and gets in my face, he’s getting a kick in the balls and I’ll definitely be pressing assault charges, regardless of his intentions.
In the US, people in public can be photographed doing anything that is legal. Commercial use of the photographs taken is prohibited. That mean in advertisements or endorsements. Otherwise, no legal restrictions.
As mentioned in this thread - if they made money via using it for news or artistic purposes you probably wouldn’t have much luck with that. In the US you don’t have full control over your image when in public.
It will depend on where you are, but in a great many places, a dude in an umpire’s mask shoving a camera in people’s faces is going to be weird enough to rise to the level “call the cops and let them figure it out”. In addition to the ball-kicking that others have alluded to.
Is it possible that the real online art project is not the (at this point nonexistent) photos, but rather the online responses elicited by your proposal?
I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions to the rule (not that there are any real rules in phtoography, but generally for this type of photoraphy closer is always better).
Are those your shots? They’re quite good but not what I’d consider “street” photography. They’re candids in public, sure, but as far as the genre of “street” I’d say they miss the mark.
Also, if you don’t think that taking photos of cute scantily clad girls with a telephoto lens isn’t creepy, I don’t know what to tell you. All of these pictures would have been better if the photographer (whether you or someone else) was closer.
PS, Where did you take these shots because I need to go there right now.
I’m pretty sure you can take a photo of somebody doing something illegal as well. It might not be wise, but it’s not against the law (assuming you’re not a part of whatever is going on).
I saw a news story where a photographer was taking pictures of drivers using cell phones, then printing the pictures on billboards. The TV show blurred out the faces on their pictures of the billboards but apparently the billboards did not need to blur the faces.
No, I disagree. The long-lens look is part of my style. I *like *'em that way, and the long-lens look is far more flattering, by far, than that obtained by using a wide-angle lens. ‘Street’ photography is overrated anyway. It became popular in the 1960s. The people are at a public festival and it’s held during hot weather. Nothing ‘creepy’ about it. Many of them are there with camera taking pictures of one another anyway.
You are right; I needed to rephrase that. What you cannot do is burst in on someone in private, on their property, and take their photo. You can take their photo from a distance if you are not on their property but what they are doing is visible from public property.
Those girls chose to expose their bodies to public view. Taking pictures of them is no more “creepy” than looking at them in the first place.
I can, however, understand the use of a telephoto lens. Some women are extremely hypocritical–they want to be able to go half or three-fourths naked in public, but they don’t think that anybody should so much as hint that the sight of a woman’s uncovered body is in any way attractive or pleasurable.
