Strangers Project

danny_bhoy

danny_bhoy

Messages
3,884
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
One of my New Years resolutions (yeah, I know) is to be a bit bolder and just go out and 'do' things.

So with that in mind I'm going to start a project that I've been thinking about for a while. Think 'Humans Of New York' style street photography, urban portraiture of random strangers with an interesting blurb about each one. There'll be a Facebook page and eventually the aim is to self publish a book via blurb or similar.

So, with all of this in mind, I'm aware that I'll need a model release form for every subject but is there anything else, on the legal side of things or just in general, that I'd need or should be mindful of?

Thanks in advance for any help :)
 
Last edited:
Good luck with the project. I have done some stranger shooting in the past and found it to be quite fun! Just be mindful of other people while shooting and that you are not shooting on private property and you should be fine!
 
While it's best practice, and often vital to get a release form for commercial work, I wouldn't worry too much if it's personal work.

YOu reckon Avedon got release forms for "In the American West"? I doubt it.
 
Ferj said:
Good luck with the project. I have done some stranger shooting in the past and found it to be quite fun! Just be mindful of other people while shooting and that you are not shooting on private property and you should be fine!
Click to expand...
Is it actually illegal to shoot other people while on private property?
 
the OP never mentioned shooting on private property... he was talking of street photography I think.

Plus... it's only illegal if you don't have permission... and even then, you'd not necessarily be breaking any laws. That would depend on where you were. I've shot quite legally on private property many times... I had permission to do so.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
the OP never mentioned shooting on private property... he was talking of street photography I think.

Plus... it's only illegal if you don't have permission... and even then, you'd not necessarily be breaking any laws. That would depend on where you were. I've shot quite legally on private property many times... I had permission to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is *illegal* to take photos on private property unless there are terms and conditions actually banning photography, and even then it would only be a civil matter rather than criminal.
 
Thanks for the responses guy. Some good points that I hadn't considered - re the private property thing, I'll consciously try to make an effort not to venture onto private property as I think it'll be a hard enough venture without disgruntled land owners.

I know David mentioned not worrying too much about release forms but I've draughted a real simple one, just a few lines, that I can keep in reserve just in case.
 
boliston said:
Is it actually illegal to shoot other people while on private property?
Click to expand...


Sorry.. wasn't tagged in t this, despite you quoting me.

In a way it is... it goes like this: Anyone has the right to insist you do not photograph on their property if they do not wish you to do so... or insist that you leave if you do not desist (as it's their property). If you then refuse to desist and do not leave, you are technically trespassing... and that is a crime.. they can call the police, and have you removed. In all likelihood, it would never even reach a court... civil or otherwise, but trespassing is a crime.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry.. wasn't tagged in t this, despite you quoting me.

In a way it is... it goes like this: Anyone has the right to insist you do not photograph on their property if they do not wish you to do so... or insist that you leave if you do not desist (as it's their property). If you then refuse to desist and do not leave, you are technically trespassing... and that is a crime.. they can call the police, and have you removed. In all likelihood, it would never even reach a court... civil or otherwise, but trespassing is a crime.
Click to expand...
I was talking about shooting on private property where there is no advertised ban on photography - some shopping malls have clear "no photography" signs on each door so fair enough, and even if there is no sign someone could still ask you in person not to photograph. I was talking more about a situation where there is neither a sign OR a verbal request not to photograph. In such circumstances then I cannot see photography on private land would be an issue.
 
boliston said:
I was talking about shooting on private property where there is no advertised ban on photography - some shopping malls have clear "no photography" signs on each door so fair enough, and even if there is no sign someone could still ask you in person not to photograph. I was talking more about a situation where there is neither a sign OR a verbal request not to photograph. In such circumstances then I cannot see photography on private land would be an issue.
Click to expand...


It would make no difference if the "ban" on photography was advertised or not. The owner of the property can decide whether he wants you shooting or not.. it's their property. They don't need to advertise the fact.

You think that because they're not a sign it makes a difference? I don't have a sign outside my house saying you can't shoot in here Adrian.. does that mean you can come in and shoot whether I like it or not?
 
Pookeyhead said:
It would make no difference if the "ban" on photography was advertised or not. The owner of the property can decide whether he wants you shooting or not.. it's their property. They don't need to advertise the fact.

You think that because they're not a sign it makes a difference? I don't have a sign outside my house saying you can't shoot in here Adrian.. does that mean you can come in and shoot whether I like it or not?
Click to expand...
OK what about mobile phone use? Some places have a ban on mobile phone use and this is usually advertised with a symbol showing a mobile phone with a red bar across it - does this mean that even if I'm on private land and there is no such sign then I still cannot use a mobile phone?
 
boliston said:
OK what about mobile phone use? Some places have a ban on mobile phone use and this is usually advertised with a symbol showing a mobile phone with a red bar across it - does this mean that even if I'm on private land and there is no such sign then I still cannot use a mobile phone?
Click to expand...

If the owner decides he doesn't want you to, and he sees you doing it, yes. of course. It's his land... he tells you to either stop, or **** off. If you refuse to leave when requested, you're trespassing.

Seriously... what exactly are you finding hard to understand here? On private lend you can make up what rules you want, so long as having to obey those rules will not actually force people to break other laws.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If the owner decides he doesn't want you to, and he sees you doing it, yes. of course. It's his land... he tells you to either stop, or **** off. If you refuse to leave when requested, you're trespassing.

Seriously... what exactly are you finding hard to understand here? On private lend you can make up what rules you want, so long as having to obey those rules will not actually force people to break other laws.
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to get at is that if an activity is not advertised as banned and you are not told verbally by the owner that an activity is banned then what is the problem with doing that activity?

Should I seek permission for any activity I wish to undertake on private land just in case it happens to be a "banned" activity?
 
boliston said:
What I'm trying to get at is that if an activity is not advertised as banned and you are not told verbally by the owner that an activity is banned then what is the problem with doing that activity?

Should I seek permission for any activity I wish to undertake on private land just in case it happens to be a "banned" activity?
Click to expand...
You're looking at this from the wrong direction. It's private land, don't start from banned, start with allowed, you're allowed to do whatever the owner is OK with. But the owner doesn't have to expressly advertise the fact, and they're perfectly within their rights to change their mind at any time.

So long as you are aware of that when you start taking pictures where there's no 'photography banned' sign, you'll be fine.

It doesn't matter how many millions of people are allowed to shoot with a phone, if the security guard shouts 'no photography' when you get your DSLR out, that's the end of the argument. Unreasonable? Maybe, but perfectly valid nonetheless.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It would make no difference if the "ban" on photography was advertised or not. The owner of the property can decide whether he wants you shooting or not.. it's their property. They don't need to advertise the fact.

You think that because they're not a sign it makes a difference? I don't have a sign outside my house saying you can't shoot in here Adrian.. does that mean you can come in and shoot whether I like it or not?
Click to expand...
The difference here is that you do not have a permanent "open house" where the general public can come and go as they please. If I were to leave my front door open every day with a sign inviting all and sundry to come in and explore it would not be a surprise if some people took photos if I had interesting photogenic items in my property. If I did not want photos taken then I would either make sure I had clear "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs or I would tell each visitor that they must NOT take photos.
 
boliston said:
The difference here is that you do not have a permanent "open house" where the general public can come and go as they please. If I were to leave my front door open every day with a sign inviting all and sundry to come in and explore it would not be a surprise if some people took photos if I had interesting photogenic items in my property. If I did not want photos taken then I would either make sure I had clear "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs or I would tell each visitor that they must NOT take photos.
Click to expand...


Not having a sign would just mean I had to tell people not to take photos... it would just be silly of me to NOT have a sign, but NOT having a sign doesn't mean you have a right to take photo if I decide I don't want you to. My house, my rules... my way, or the highway ,dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top