Legalities of candids?

Jimi

Jimi

Messages
477
Name
Jimmy
Edit My Images
No
Out of interest, as a photographer, what are the legal implications of taking candid shots of a stranger and then displaying or posting the image online or in print? Assuming of course that you have not asked permission to take the photo in the first place. I am not referring to copyright issues but I am more interested about the legalities of using somebodies image without their consent or knowledge.
 
you own the copyright - and on that basis (in the UK differs where you are in the world) there are no ramifications displaying or selling the photos with or without consent

However

Photos are subject to libel laws in the UK - so if your photos (mis) represented someone in a way that could be libelous they could persue you this way
 
I believe that if you are in a public place and are in plain sight i.e people can see if you're taking a picture and can make their objections known, you are OK to do so.

From what I gather on here, the courteous thing to do is ask the subject before hand or show them the picture after and see if they're OK with it
 
Russ77 said:
I believe that if you are in a public place and are in plain sight i.e people can see if you're taking a picture and can make their objections known, you are OK to do so.

From what I gather on here, the courteous thing to do is ask the subject before hand or show them the picture after and see if they're OK with it
Click to expand...

if they are in public in plain site or not you can photograph them. Asking before hand doesn't make great candids
 
I understand the copyright issues relating to the actual image. Given the very nature of candid shots, generally, the person may have no idea that the photo has been taken (unless of course you tell them after the fact). The issue I struggle to understand is what is stopping that person from pursuing you if they happen to see their photograph displayed on a website or in print somewhere? Assuming that you have not asked for their permission to use the image.
 
Jimi said:
I understand the copyright issues relating to the actual image. Given the very nature of candid shots, generally, the person may have no idea that the photo has been taken (unless of course you tell them after the fact). The issue I struggle to understand is what is stopping that person from pursuing you if they happen to see their photograph displayed on a website or in print somewhere? Assuming that you have not asked for their permission to use the image.
Click to expand...

nothing stopping them, but in the UK they have no rights over their image so you can do what you want with it as I said above - you can do what you want with it.

This is also as I said above is subject to libel laws still so they can try and prove said photograph is libelous.

boliston said:
I think you need a model release for commercial use (say in an advert or corporate brochure) but not for editorial use such as blog.
Click to expand...

not in the UK - there is also no legal distinction between editorial and commercial use
 
Just a warning though.

I was photographing an old school and was accosted by a member of staff and asked to show my photographs as there were children nearby.

Understandable in this day & age, but worth a mention.
 
rizla01 said:
Just a warning though.

I was photographing an old school and was accosted by a member of staff and asked to show my photographs as there were children nearby.

Understandable in this day & age, but worth a mention.
Click to expand...

not understandable at all and shows a considerable lack of understanding of both his and your rights.
 
Probably, In law.

But I think that we all have a responsibilty to help the authorities prevent the actions of a sick minority.

I was quite happy to oblige and I think that we all should, in similar circumstance, rather than stand up for our rights.
 
rizla01 said:
Probably, In law.

But I think that we all have a responsibilty to help the authorities prevent the actions of a sick minority.

I was quite happy to oblige and I think that we all should, in similar circumstance, rather than stand up for our rights.
Click to expand...

and let them all think that if you have a camera and use it, you must be a wrong doer....... :wacky:

It's the same as CRB checks, I need one as I run a basketball club for kids, now I have one I can go out and run wild and free, it only catches out the people who have been caught before they ask for one. Crazy world eh:shrug:
 
rizla01 said:
Probably, In law.

But I think that we all have a responsibilty to help the authorities prevent the actions of a sick minority.

I was quite happy to oblige and I think that we all should, in similar circumstance, rather than stand up for our rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how "showing you photos" would "prevent the actions of a sick minority". If I was asked to show photos I would probably decide to simply leave the premises, assuming they were privately owned. I would not show photos as I don't like the current climate of distrust and "guilty till proven innocent".
 
rizla01 said:
Probably, In law.

But I think that we all have a responsibilty to help the authorities prevent the actions of a sick minority.

I was quite happy to oblige and I think that we all should, in similar circumstance, rather than stand up for our rights.
Click to expand...

and how would your actions help prevent those of the sick minority ? - all you really achieved by doing so was carrying on the myth that photographers are not to be trusted, doing neither you or the people who genunily look to prevent problems from a sick minority any favours
 
boyfalldown said:
not understandable at all and shows a considerable lack of understanding of both his and your rights.
Click to expand...

Disagree as in this day and age it is a sensitive subject and one has to be careful in that situation
 
boliston said:
Quite often places can be "public", yet the actual land you walk on is privately owned.

Shopping malls being an example.
Click to expand...

I had a chat about this with a police officer (very senior officer)

Places like this a public by right of admission. So unless it is clearly stated on the entrance the same rules apply for photographers and it is still fair game.

Model release is not needed in UK law. Uk tabloids would never have a story if this was a problem.
 
legarm said:
Disagree as in this day and age it is a sensitive subject and one has to be careful in that situation
Click to expand...

it may be a sensitive subject, but a teacher is in no way any authority to enforce or deal with that outside of a school - if they have geniune concerns about someones behavior then they should simply call the police.

However by your actions and agreement you are confirming photographers aren't to be trusted
 
Last edited:
So what's the point in model release forms if we can just print and make money off people without their permission?
 
guybrush said:
So what's the point in model release forms if we can just print and make money off people without their permission?
Click to expand...

the agencies like them cause they are needed n some markets. In the UK they'd also have persuasive value in the event of your subject launching a libel claim against you
 
Maybe some aren't to be trusted. If someone wants to photograph a school then i def think permission should be sought because of the delicate nature of things these days regarding children. I would def ask.
 
legarm said:
Maybe some aren't to be trusted. If someone wants to photograph a school then i def think permission should be sought because of the delicate nature of things these days regarding children. I would def ask.
Click to expand...

I just think that this shows a sensitivity to the problem. We have the RIGHT to go ahead without permission but I cannot see that being considerate in respect of the plight of others is anything to be ashamed of - BUT that does go against the Papperazzi mentality, I guess.
 
rizla01 said:
I just think that this shows a sensitivity to the problem. We have the RIGHT to go ahead without permission but I cannot see that being considerate in respect of the plight of others is anything to be ashamed of - BUT that does go against the Papperazzi mentality, I guess.
Click to expand...

Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should go out and do it :)

You ahve the right to climb up a tree with a long lens and photograph kids playing in the park... I wouldn't reccomend it though :)


Regarding photogrpahing kids in or around or near a school.. I would ask.. common decency and common sense..... but you dont have to :)
 
legarm said:
Maybe some aren't to be trusted. If someone wants to photograph a school then i def think permission should be sought because of the delicate nature of things these days regarding children. I would def ask.
Click to expand...

I would probably tell them out of courtisy - but agreeing with the teachers actions you're enforcing them - and people with big cameras ain't a problem.

If a teacher has genuine concerns about anybodies behaviour outside school they should call the police. Before people start to scream 'but what about the children' think it might be anyone demanding to see the back of your camera and mug you in the process. A teacher outside of school is in no way the authorites.

Maybe some people with out cameras aren't to be trusted either?
 
A teacher has more authority than most, outside the school gates.

I would never dream of taking picks outside a school without getting permission. Best to be safe than sorry. I wouldn't want angry parents accusing me of things that were not true.
 
As long as your are on public property you can take photos of someone who is on private property. It's the place the photo is taken from that's important (legally)
 
legarm said:
Maybe in a court of law but any respectful parent would listen to what a teacher has to say!
Click to expand...

but a parent teacher relationship is very different to some bloke charging out of a school and claiming to have all sorts of authority over a random photographer :thinking: anyway this thread has now taken a turn for the slightly surreal, I'm not sure how it got to respectful parents or the relevance of that relationship so I'll bow out :wave:
 
photos on their own cannot be libelous since they are recording a moment which would be a truth. only if they are manipulated or titled in a libelous way would you be able to sue

boyfalldown said:
Photos are subject to libel laws in the UK - so if your photos (mis) represented someone in a way that could be libelous they could persue you this way
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
photos on their own cannot be libelous since they are recording a moment which would be a truth. only if they are manipulated or titled in a libelous way would you be able to sue
Click to expand...

without meaning to sound like its a pantomine - yes they can. Naomi Campbell did quite well out of an unmanipulated photo because the implications were libelous a few years ago
 
Wow:eek: I wasn't expecting that lot! The main point for the original question was to answer whether or not there were any legal implications of taking and displaying photos taken without somebodies knowledge or consent. The question arose after a conversation I had with a friend, who said he would not be happy if he saw a photo of himself on the internet or a magazine etc. if it had been taken without his knowledge. He pointed out that he would take legal action over it because he hadn't consented to it's publication, hence my question.

The general concensus appears to be that it is perfectly legal to take photographs of strangers without their knowledge or consent and then publish those images either in print or online. So let me give a scenario;-

You take a picture of a stranger you see whilst out in public. You take the picture because the person has very distinguishing features, they are wearing an unusual hat and sitting on a bench reading a book. It just cries out to you 'Award winning shot!' You enter the said photograph into a competition and it gets placed, the pic is then published in a magazine. The person you photographed sees the article and isn't happy about their image being in the magazine. They want to take legal action.

Surely they must have some grounds for taking it further? Has a case ever been brought about?

The more sensitive subject about schools and children etc. etc. is another debate all together and wasn't the basis of this thread.
 
asphotographymk said:
Places like this a public by right of admission. So unless it is clearly stated on the entrance the same rules apply for photographers and it is still fair game.
Click to expand...
But they can ask you to stop taking them, or to leave.

Jimi said:
Wow:eek: I wasn't expecting that lot! The main point for the original question was to answer whether or not there were any legal implications of taking and displaying photos taken without somebodies knowledge or consent. The question arose after a conversation I had with a friend, who said he would not be happy if he saw a photo of himself on the internet or a magazine etc. if it had been taken without his knowledge. He pointed out that he would take legal action over it because he hadn't consented to it's publication, hence my question.

The general concensus appears to be that it is perfectly legal to take photographs of strangers without their knowledge or consent and then publish those images either in print or online. So let me give a scenario;-

You take a picture of a stranger you see whilst out in public. You take the picture because the person has very distinguishing features, they are wearing an unusual hat and sitting on a bench reading a book. It just cries out to you 'Award winning shot!' You enter the said photograph into a competition and it gets placed, the pic is then published in a magazine. The person you photographed sees the article and isn't happy about their image being in the magazine. They want to take legal action.

Surely they must have some grounds for taking it further? Has a case ever been brought about?

The more sensitive subject about schools and children etc. etc. is another debate all together and wasn't the basis of this thread.
Click to expand...
Think of it this way - that's exactly what paparazzi do - they stand around, outside houses/shops/fitness centres/bars/clubs etc and take pics of celebs. Most of the celebs would not give their permission if asked, yet the pics still get published - all totally legal.*

*There are some exceptions to this, for example using a long lens to view inside someone's house I think would not be considered legal, nor would being on private property and taking pics of them.
 
boyfalldown said:
without meaning to sound like its a pantomine - yes they can. Naomi Campbell did quite well out of an unmanipulated photo because the implications were libelous a few years ago
Click to expand...

there must have been more that just a photograph - a photograph is not libelous on its own.
 
(un)Fortunately in this country, your friend has no control over what people do with photographs that are taken of him in public, the only time he could really kick off is if he is somewhere he could 'reasonably expect privacy' That would be places like toilets or his bedroom etc with photographers climbing trees to get a shot of him in the bath or something.
 
Jimi said:
snip

You take a picture of a stranger you see whilst out in public. You take the picture because the person has very distinguishing features, they are wearing an unusual hat and sitting on a bench reading a book. It just cries out to you 'Award winning shot!' You enter the said photograph into a competition and it gets placed, the pic is then published in a magazine. The person you photographed sees the article and isn't happy about their image being in the magazine. They want to take legal action.

Surely they must have some grounds for taking it further? Has a case ever been brought about?
Click to expand...
No:)
 
Jimi said:
Thanks for all the feedback, I am convinced :) One more question though, if people have no rights to take legal action, why the all the fuss over Google street view?
Click to expand...

The fuss was because people see it as a breach of their privacy (as per your OP). The outcome is that Google will remove detail if people complain - not because they have to but because they would rather not have the negative publicity.

Just like most of the photographers here, if we were asked to remove an image we probably would in order to be seen to be caring.;)

All of the real legal fuss internationally over StreetView is their alleged farming of personal data from wifi networks.
 
Last edited:
I had this argument with my dad recently- he thought you always had to get model release forms- even for strangers on the street! He was more of a landscape photographer back in the day...think model release forms for trees are a lot less bothersome.

Personally, unless the photo shows the subject to be stupid or immoral then I can't see a motivation to object.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top