Inquiring minds want to know.....

[Iceaxe]

I'm hoping one of you you guys that stayed at a Holiday in Express last night can answer a question for me.....

If I take a picture of something.... say an arch or waterfall that contains people, in a public place, in the picture. What rights do the photographer have and what rights do the subjects have?

Can a photographer post pictures of anyone taken in a public place?

Can an individual force a photographer to remove a picture from something like a website?

I know that professional photographers force professional models to sign waivers.... how does this pertain to the general public, if at all?

Inquiring minds want to know.....

[CaverMC]

I found this pdf document from singleservingphoto.com

http://www.singleservingphoto.com/ar...tographers.pdf

It is legal to take a picture of people in a public place. There's something called a "reasonable expectation of privacy". That website gives a good example: It's legal to take pictures inside a drug store, but it's not if you're using a zoom lens to take a picture of someone in a corner reading their prescription they just got.

Also, every state has different local laws about the issue.

If you are using the photographs commercially, then it gets more complicated.

So, you can post pictures of people in public places as long as there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That's just what I get from reading stuff on the web. I'm not a lawyer or a photographer but your question raised my curiosity.

[stefan]

interesting question

[Sombeech]

If I take a picture of something.... say an arch or waterfall that contains people, in a public place, in the picture. What rights do the photographer have and what rights do the subjects have?

For this specific example, people should know that they should have no expectation to privacy. They should know that there are cameras about. If they don't, ignorance does not protect them.

When it comes to SELLING the photo, it would be up to that person to prove their case, that it was them in the photo, and that they had a problem with you making money on it in the first place.

But if you're not selling the photo, you should have the right to display it or post it on a website.

[asdf]

But if you're not selling the photo, you should have the right to display it or post it on a website.

so all the photos the paparazzi take are illegal?

[R]

In photojournalism we also look at "situations of public interest," that include people in public places who clearly do not want to be photographed. Examples include people being arrested, committing crimes, being led to court for trials, accident or house fire victims, etc. The expectation of privacy does not extend to them because of an equal expectation of journalists to show these events.

[Sombeech]

But if you're not selling the photo, you should have the right to display it or post it on a website.

so all the photos the paparazzi take are illegal?

Celebrities are public figures.

[RedMan]

So can't sell photos i have of beech masturbating in his car during lunch break that I took with a huge telephoto lens to the national enquirer?

[Sombeech]

So can't sell photos i have of beech masturbating in his car during lunch break

Don't you mean TRUCK?

[Iceaxe]

Thanks guys.... originally I was just curious how things would shake out on my website if someone were to bitch..... when writing a guide I often like to snap at least one picture with a person in it to add scale.... often I don't know the person....



And whenever I see a fat Your-a-peein' hiking down the Zion Narrows in his white Speedo I like to snap a picture so everyone on Bogley can make fun of them