Photography of an unknown person, in a public place.

H

Hiekel Essterol

Messages
84
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all. I had a search for 'public place' and came across a thread, which I read before starting my own, as the existing thread raised questions with kids etc, which arent relevant to my query.

I was on public land to take photos of a group of charity walkers, who were also walking on public land. While taking set up shots a guy came into frame as I took the shot. He was a stationary cyclist, also on public land. I liked the shot so much I took one with the focus solely on the cyclist.

How would I go legally with publishing this photo on Flickr? I didnt have permission from the man in the shot but both he and I were on public land when the shot was taken.

I look forward to your responses.

Paul
 
Public place, you can take pics and post em up. Unlike in Hungary evidently!!
 
Absolutely fine.. Do what ever you want with it.
 
SimonF01 said:
From my experience the legal aspect comes in if the photographer receives payment for the shot and the subject finds out about it and wants a cut.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily that simple. Generally for editorial work there is no need. In the UK you don't strictly need a model release to use it commercially but may make things awkward. On the flip side if the photo misrepresented the person in even an editorial use you could face an issue. However its more likely to be the publishers problem is describing a person pictured as a drunk, prostitue etc

Either way, no such issues exist here so upload to flickr
 
I also understand that if the photograph depicts the person in bad
Iight etc you could face prosecution but clearly if this just shows a normal pose etc you should be fine.
Matt
 
MatBin said:
I also understand that if the photograph depicts the person in bad
Iight etc you could face prosecution but clearly if this just shows a normal pose etc you should be fine.
Matt
Click to expand...

A civil claim maybe. It certainly isn't a criminal offence! Voyerism is but that's a different kettle of fish
 
Thanks guys. Best way to describe the shot is a profile head shot of the cyclist wearing helmet and glasses against an out of focus path in the background. That's it.
 
Hiekel Essterol said:
Thanks guys. Best way to describe the shoot is a profile head shot of the cyclist Wratting helmet and glasses against an out of focus path in the background. That's it.
Click to expand...

Yeah you will face no problem with using that in practically any way imaginable in this country
 
MatBin said:
I also understand that if the photograph depicts the person in bad
Iight etc you could face prosecution but clearly if this just shows a normal pose etc you should be fine.
Matt
Click to expand...

How can just the photograph show someone in bad light? If it's a representation of an actual event in public then there is no issue. Defamation can only occur with e.g. an accompanying description or title.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
How can just the photograph show someone in bad light? If it's a representation of an actual event in public then there is no issue. Defamation can only occur with e.g. an accompanying description or title.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Photoshop
 
Like a chap I photographed kite-surfing said to me - 'More than happy for you to post it online as long as it doesn't appear with the title "Gay Kitesurfer's Day Out" '

I think that pretty much sums up how a harmless shot could portray someone in a way they were uncomfortable.
 
Steve Smith said:
Then it's no longer just the photograph.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at but its quite hard to find a line where photoshopping were to stop an image being a photo. You could clone out some writing on a sign or establishment name for humorous reasons that could make the person nearby seem in a totally different place. This is all hypothetical anyway and I guess not that relevant to the OP
 
if we worried about every photograph taken with a person or people in it photography would come to a standstill. If the cyclist had approached you either to ask for a copy or complain then that is a different matter, but he didn't so nothing to get concerned over.
 
amtaylor said:
I see what you're getting at but its quite hard to find a line where photoshopping were to stop an image being a photo. You could clone out some writing on a sign or establishment name for humorous reasons that could make the person nearby seem in a totally different place. This is all hypothetical anyway and I guess not that relevant to the OP
Click to expand...

Yes, you could but I would consider this to be not just the photograph. And as you say, not relevant to the OP's photograph or any other unaltered and un-captioned photograph. If it is no more than a photograph taken in public, it cannot be defamatory.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Yes, you could but I would consider this to be not just the photograph. And as you say, not relevant to the OP or any unaltered and un-captioned photograph. If it is no more than a photograph taken in public, it cannot be defamatory.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
The big thing is your just putting on flicker,i doubt many people spent their time looking on flicker to see if their a photo of them on their :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes, you could but I would consider this to be not just the photograph. And as you say, not relevant to the OP's photograph or any other unaltered and un-captioned photograph. If it is no more than a photograph taken in public, it cannot be defamatory.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I could imagine a scenario where a photograph taken in public place could ridicule the subject by coincidental placing of signs behind the subject, or even taken from an angle making it look like something was happening was not. I remember a facebook post of a pile of such photos - look like an man sitting on a bench was being 'orally pleasured' by a female, who was in fact just doing up a shoelace or something near the bench - the angle of the shot gave the wrong impression and thus might be defamatory I guess.

Anyhow, off the point & overly pedantic! I'll get me coat......
 
flyingmonkeycorp said:
The cyclist could argue that you misrepresented him by showing him in a stationary pose, suggesting that he's a feckless layabout that never rides his bike.

Realistically though, I doubt it'll be a problem ;)
Click to expand...
Ha ha
 
The only misrepresentation I can see happening is if the place is easily identifiable as a footpath (Rather than a bridleway or byway) and he is clearly seen on his bike. This opens him up to action from the land owners etc, for cycling on a footpath... Although I believe its a civil offence, it could still be used in a defamatory way.

If you cant actually see him ON his bike (or his bike at all) then thats a grey area - Its not against the rules to push or walk a bike over a footpath - only to ride it... neither is it against the rules to wear cycling gear when going for a walk... *cough* if you know what I mean... *cough*
 
Last edited:
george g said:
The only misrepresentation I can see happening is if the place is easily identifiable as a footpath (Rather than a bridleway or byway) and he is clearly seen on his bike. This opens him up to action from the land owners etc, for cycling on a footpath... Although I believe its a civil offence, it could still be used in a defamatory way.
Click to expand...

That's not a misrepresentation though as he was there.
 
amtaylor said:
That's not a misrepresentation though as he was there.
Click to expand...

Youre not wrong actually... for some reason I didnt think it that way... although Im sure he would do his best to argue he wasnt cycling but stopped to rest or something (IF it ever got that far...). Either way I am quite clearly wrong in my first statement! lol
 
Hiekel Essterol said:
It's a shared path, signed for walkers and cyclists.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to worry. The thread has gone way beyond the parameters of your question. We all just seem to want to discuss the hypothetical. :D
 
amtaylor said:
I don't think you need to worry. The thread has gone way beyond the parameters of your question. We all just seem to want to discuss the hypothetical. :D
Click to expand...
makes a change :)
I mentioned it only as a possible problem, not something that would probably happen, certainly not in context to the OP but more as something to be aware of in the future, hypothetically.
 
MatBin said:
makes a change :)
I mentioned it only as a possible problem, not something that would probably happen, certainly not in context to the OP but more as something to be aware of in the future, hypothetically.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically it could be a money earner as evidence for owners of non-cycling tracts of land for the purposes of litigation
 
Even if both the photographer and subject are in a public place I think there are situations when you could open yourself up to a civil claim for infringement of privacy under the EHCR when publishing a photograph. It's not clear cut; it would depend on how embarrassing the photograph was and how widely it was distributed.

Even although it's from a dissenting opinion in the HoL judgement on Campbell v MGN Ltd the following is probably apposite:-

74. But the fact that we cannot avoid being photographed does not mean that anyone who takes or obtains such photographs can publish them to the world at large. In the recent case of Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 Mr Peck was filmed on a public street in an embarrassing moment by a CCTV camera. Subsequently, the film was broadcast several times on the television. The Strasbourg court said (at p. 739) that this was an invasion of his privacy contrary to article 8:

"the relevant moment was viewed to an extent which far exceeded any exposure to a passer-by or to security observation and to a degree surpassing that which the applicant could possibly have foreseen when he walked in Brentwood on August 20, 1995."
75. In my opinion, therefore, the widespread publication of a photograph of someone which reveals him to be in a situation of humiliation or severe embarrassment, even if taken in a public place, may be an infringement of the privacy of his personal information. Likewise, the publication of a photograph taken by intrusion into a private place (for example, by a long distance lens) may in itself by such an infringement, even if there is nothing embarrassing about the picture itself: Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1985] 1 WLR 804, 807. As Lord Mustill said in R v Broadcasting Standards Commission, Ex p BBC [2001] QB 885, 900, "An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate."
 
amtaylor said:
Hypothetically it could be a money earner as evidence for owners of non-cycling tracts of land for the purposes of litigation
Click to expand...
I have heard of cyclists getting fixed penalty notices from Pcsos (a criminal offence like speeding) but not yet heard of a civil penalty for this type of misdemeanour!
 
zednini said:
Even if both the photographer and subject are in a public place I think there are situations when you could open yourself up to a civil claim for infringement of privacy under the EHCR when publishing a photograph. It's not clear cut; it would depend on how embarrassing the photograph was and how widely it was distributed.

Even although it's from a dissenting opinion in the HoL judgement on Campbell v MGN Ltd the following is probably apposite:-

74. But the fact that we cannot avoid being photographed does not mean that anyone who takes or obtains such photographs can publish them to the world at large. In the recent case of Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 Mr Peck was filmed on a public street in an embarrassing moment by a CCTV camera. Subsequently, the film was broadcast several times on the television. The Strasbourg court said (at p. 739) that this was an invasion of his privacy contrary to article 8:

"the relevant moment was viewed to an extent which far exceeded any exposure to a passer-by or to security observation and to a degree surpassing that which the applicant could possibly have foreseen when he walked in Brentwood on August 20, 1995."
75. In my opinion, therefore, the widespread publication of a photograph of someone which reveals him to be in a situation of humiliation or severe embarrassment, even if taken in a public place, may be an infringement of the privacy of his personal information. Likewise, the publication of a photograph taken by intrusion into a private place (for example, by a long distance lens) may in itself by such an infringement, even if there is nothing embarrassing about the picture itself: Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1985] 1 WLR 804, 807. As Lord Mustill said in R v Broadcasting Standards Commission, Ex p BBC [2001] QB 885, 900, "An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate."
Click to expand...

I don't think the OP caught him in any awkward or embarrassing position,and Video is different from stills :)
 
simonblue said:
I don't think the OP caught him in any awkward or embarrassing position,and Video is different from stills :)
Click to expand...

Have you seen the way some cyclists dress :)

Campbell v MGN was all about a photograph and para 75 of the judgement quite clearly alludes to a photograph and not video.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top