Ok so this is in response to the "do you know your rights as a photographer?" thread
It's funny, here it is a week after reading that thread and my rights were violated. Here's my story and a thread for others to post their stories of legal misconduct and the photos that came from it. Hopefully I'm not the only one.

Every day I drive home from work to witness this very cool site. yesterday I decided I would finally stop and take some photos. Before I could shoot off 3 photos I was approached by the owner (at my request) who promptly told me I wasn't allowed. Obviously they don't know I'm the master not to mention their compound is located on a very busy street, where I was standing on the sidewalk.I walked away disapointed and agitated at how snobby she was toward me and her lame excuses as to why. When I got home I was quite happy that one turned out decent (1 out of 3 ain't bad ). You can't see the childs face (reason #1 she gave) so I appologize now if the horse people should see this, it's not my fault you didn't have faith in my skills. This is what you get for underestimating a girl with a quick-shot camera, we all know that's really what this was about.

for a larger version go here---> http://www.deviantart.com/view/27921667/

 

Awesome shot. You did an excellent job with the processing. Amazing to me that you only got one or two frames off.

Crummy about being told you couldn't continue to photograph, from a public street.

 

Nice photo!

You should show up with a slew of people with cameras and give the owner that flyer with your rights If she wants to try and control what happens in a publically visible area on a busy street she can put up 8' fences. Too bad she couldn't 'pony up' a better attitude and be nicer to you in any case :P

 

Great shot

I've tried to get shots like that of my daughter, but they never come out that nice. If you're ever passing thru Bishop, and want a job................

Nik

 

She actually said if the city would let her she'd put up 8ft walls. I could have pushed the issue and stayed but I figure I'll just go back with my portfolio and be like "well, I had offered this for free but now if you want photos you'll have to pay." because that's the type of place where rich people take their children and would pay to have photos taken. Oh well, what're you gonna do right.

Thanks DID, much appreciated, had I known she was going to shoot me down I would have shot a few more. I was soo sad about not getting a good one, and then POOF! there it was. Yeee haw!

xsmini-Where the heck is Bishop? And sure (Edit) Eak! don't know the odds of me going that far north...but you never know

 

Ummm, Eastern central part of California. About 5 hours from LA, or 4hrs from Reno, or 4 hrs from Vegas............ And those are the close cities......

Nik

 

let her call the cops.... friggin' people....

 

Forgive my ignorance ... How do I post-process a photo to get that effect ?(most in B&W with photo object in brilliant color)

Philmunch@aol.com

 

Nice photo. Didn't understand much about what you're complaining about though. If you're in a public place and there are no legal signs about photography(like the ones put up around gov't installations) then I would guess she was lying to you.

 

Like I said I could have pushed the issue. What she was saying was more like a very snobby "I would prefer not.", Had she been nice about it I wouldn't have cared so much. It was her attitude that irritated me.

RED FURY-do you know anything about using layer masks in photoshop? if so you can use a color layer and a B&W layer and then use the layer mask to illiminate what you don't want...I'm not sure how to explain it.

 

Here's a good summary I found of what's legal/what's not when it comes to taking photos:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...era-laws_x.htm

After reading this it seems clear that, as she recognizes, StoopidGirl was well within her rights to take this photo.

Cheers!

 

We had a discussion about photographer's rights in this thread

 

People take pictures of "THE SHORT BUS" across my back window with camera phones all the time. I just make faces in the rear view mirror whenever i catch them taking a picture

I want that mini sticker that says "No Photos Please"

 

That is a cool shot Em!
I really like the soft backlight/highlight.
The framing is great, the trail of dust behind the girl and horse.


As for it being a public street. Well, you know I'm an elementary schoolteacher so that is where I'm coming from.

In our schools, every September we hand out a form where parents either give, or deny, permission for their child to be photographed, videotaped, or have their likeness transmitted by any electronic means. The reasons for this are both legal and safety.
If we see a person photographing any of our students during school hours, be it on campus or a public right-of-way, then we are mandated to report it to the office. It's our responsibility to the parents who enrust their treasures upon us.

The woman who spoke to you may have had this on her mind also. Of course, [b]there are better ways to approach this[b]. She need not have been snooty.

This might not be the type of reply y'all are looking for and, obviously, I'm for a photographer's rights. However, those rights cannot supersede all others.


-Juan

 

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.....BUT....To be fair.....

You DO have the right to take the photo.

You DO NOT have the right to post this on the internet or distribute it in any way. Including, putting it in a portfolio and using it to generate income. Unless, you get the person's WRITTEN permission to do so! As you recount the story it is clear that not only do you lack permission you are in direct contravention to thier wishes.

If you want to take a picture for your enjoyment, no harm, no foul...But you must keep it to yourself when it is an image of a person or persons. To my knowledge.... this is the law

 

my understanding is as long as it is for editorial/personal use, as the copyright holder the photographer can use the image however they want within those bounds. Once you switch over to commercial usage, then you'd need a release.

 

Well, even in this event that woman could not speak on behalf of the child unless she was the parent or legal guardian. Besides, if the face of the person is indistinguishable I do not think it applies (ie crowds seen in newspapers, TV).

 

You can make money for this image beacause a) the childs face is hidden. b)as long as the photo is not placed in an advertisement. c) you are not adding misrepresentations to the photo by means of words or text. This is free reign and since it is stoopid girls photo, she can do what she wishes with it. She does not need to get written premission unless the photo is to be used in the media.

 

Also, if that is the law how does the notion of Paparazzi work? Do they get a signed release when they take photos of a star sunbathing nude on their deck in Beverly Hills and then sell it to some mag?

(I am actually really curious why it is okay for them to work as they do if releases are supposed to be obtained from people for sale/commercial use of their image.)

 

I understand where both of you are coming from. I did have a right to take the photo, just as they had the right to decline me at which point I stopped photographing as a courtesy not because I had to. I was not on their property I was on a city street and there are no signs posted otherwise. There are a lot of perverts out there so I completely understand Juans point and do not disagree. I do have a right to post the photo as I am not using it for profit, if I sold the rights to the photo then I would be in violation. there are millions of photos taken everyday at parks and recreational areas of strangers and their children and pets, this is no different, it is in the form of art and not advertisement. Now had I been on private property this story would be different. This place is in plain view from a major street, I was on the sidewalk and purposly did not take any photos showing anyone's face. Even if this photo showed the face I would still have the right to post it, just not make money off it or use it to defame the person. If they put up privacy walls then Planeguy would be right about the posting issue. I've been pretty familiar with photographers rights for a long time and am possative I have crossed no lines.

 

I'm positive about that too.

 

All though...I am a bit worried about the laws changing because the paparazzi have been crossing the line. Legal as it may be they are taking things too far and it may spoil it for the legitimate photographers like us.

 

It would be perfectly legal to license the shot for editorial use, even if the face were visible. What you couldn't do is license it for commericial (that is, advertising) without a release. Nothing prevents you from making money off it for editorial use. And you certainly can post it on the web or use it in your portfolio without permission.

The woman was being silly in telling you that you couldn't photograph something clearly visible from the street.

Mark

 

The front page of, say, the National Enquirer is editorial use so no release is needed. Using the picture for, say, an ad for Kellogg's Rice Krispies or for a picture on the box would be commericial use.

Mark

 

Thanks for clearing that up