is it rude to photograph people you don't know?

[Mike Henley]

I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.

Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?

Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?

What do you and how do you do it?

[Joseph Meehan]

Post by Mike Henley
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?
What do you and how do you do it?

Most of the time I don't ask, if they are just part of the location.
Occasionally, for one reason or anther I might photograph someone as the
primary subject without asking. Generally if I want to photograph someone
as the primary subject, I will ask (sometime after the fact) and offer a
copy of the finished product.

I can't recall anyone objecting or refusing. Most are flattered.

One of my favorite photos is of my son with three mature ladies. It was
taken during a marathon in Dublin were we were both running. They looked
like his grandmothers and they all were having a great time. I do wish I
had the opportunity to get their names so I might send them copies and maybe
visit them the next time I am in Dublin.

With all my equipment, many of my favorite photos are like this one,
which is no technical winner taken with a disposable camera.

Photos for publication or commercial use are a whole different thing

[Lewis Lang]

Subject: is it rude to photograph people you don't know?
Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 8:58 AM
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?
What do you and how do you do it?

Rudeness, like beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder, or in this case,
also, the "beholdee". Rights of privacy do not extend to public places. Some
people are OK and others are paranoid about being photographeed in public,
regardless of privacy issues. You have the right to photograph in public as the
first ammendment ensures that no law be made restricting freedom of speech (I'm
paraphrasing here).

You don't have to get a signed release if you are not going to use the
resulting photograph for commercial purposes (to promote a product and/or a
service). For ads/etc. its best to have one to cover your butt against suing in
this sue happy age. For newspaper/magazine/textbook other editorial type work
you have the right to photograph and have published photographs that serve the
purpose of information/education without any signed releases. This may extend
to the web too, but I'd check deeper into this area if you have any more
questions/doubts. This goes for the U.S. - other countries may have different
laws and/or customs concerning this issue.

If someone objects to a candid, just smile and move on if you feel
uncomfortable and/or if you feel you are being "rude". But in either case,
regardless of how you feel/whether you feel rude or not, its still your right
to take/make pictures of people in public. People give up privacy rights when
appearing in public places, so its your right to photograph people in public,
as to what level you feel comfortable doing this and at which public places and
in what conditions/circumstances is a personal matter to sort out between you
and your feelings if not your conscience. Nobody can take away your right (here
inthe U.S.) to photograph people in public lest they want to change the
constitution to repeal the first ammendment and then you'd have the right to
take away their right to tell you (their (freedom of) speech) what to do in the
first place ;-).

I am not a lawyer so therefore take this as a qucik summary of my rhoughts
rather than as "legal advice".

Happy public shooting!!! :-)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

[Mike Henley]

Post by Lewis Lang
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

lewis... what equipment (camera/film) do you use?

[Lewis Lang]

Subject: Re: is it rude to photograph people you don't know?
Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 2:18 PM

Post by Lewis Lang
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

lewis... what equipment (camera/film) do you use?

Currently, Contax 167MT w/ 16mm and 28mm Zeiss lenses, Nikon EM with 50/1.8
Series E lens, and Minolta 600si with the superb 24-50 f/4 Maxxum zoom as well
as the renowned 70-210/4 older discontinued Maxxum zoom.

In the past I've used 4x5", RZ67 (with spectacular 140 macro) and MF and AF and
RF 35mm systems too numerous to mention (Leica and Nikon several times over)
and even a Rollei SL26 (Rollei SLR thatused interchangable Zeiss lenses but
accepted 126 (K64) cartridges.

I currently use mostly Sensia 100 and E100VS/Elite Extra Color but have used
just about everything in the past. I like Impresa 50 for its ulta fine grain
and sharpness and colors and Fuji Superia X-tra 200 (though contrasty and drops
dark browns and purples like alead balloon) has great sharpness, skin tones,
saturation, etc. though it is not "archival". I like Ilford XP-2 Super for
studio portraits and headshots. Prefer Neopan 1600 and Tmax 400 and Tri-X for
outdoors stuff.

Miss K25 and Ektar 25 very very much.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

[k]

just do it.

a picture doesnt hurt anyone, and if they're annoyed then move on.
nobody wants a bitchy subject, and besides theres other things in the
world to stress about.

k.

Post by Mike Henley
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?
What do you and how do you do it?

[Alan Browne]

Post by Mike Henley
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?

Google away (subject comes up often) and find out the laws for your area.

It is usually not illegal to photograph people in public areas. Some
places have laws against photographing at places like pools.

__Publishing__ a photo (including on the web) of an individual or a
small group of people almost always requires the permission of the
people in the image. One exception is, for example, if you are
photographing a large public gathering of people, then individuals do
not figure prominently, as such it can be published w/o releases.
Another exception is if somebody (at a large gathering) is looking
directly at the camera and 'posing' (smiling, making a face or a gesture
towards the camera) is giving implicit permission to be photographed and
published. This last interpretation is one that might be valid in one
jurisdiction and not in another.

The other day (and in the spirit of the SI:Special Moments mandate) I
was waiting at a light and a cop pulled up on a motorcycle. I yelled at
him and asked to take a shot. He agreed and then posed (damnit) and I
shot it. Legally, I didn't have to ask, but it's better than an
argument with a cop. OTOH since he nodded his head and agreed; since he
obviously posed for the shot; since he is a public servant I will have
no legal problem publishing the shot in the Si if I choose to use it thus.

I photograph freely in the street or parks. Sometimes I ask, sometimes
I don't. Really nice looking shots, I hand over my calling card and ask
for them to e-mail me, and I'll e-mail them a scan.

Cheers,
Alan

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Alan Browne
__Publishing__ a photo (including on the web) of an individual or a
small group of people almost always requires the permission of the
people in the image.

You don't need permission for editorial or informational use (in the
U.S.).

[William Graham]

Post by Mike Henley
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?
What do you and how do you do it?

I sometimes sit at an outside table at our local "Saturday Market", with a
table tripod and a 75-150 mm Zoom Nikkor lens. I can usually take pictures
of people walking by when they are 30 to 70 feet away, quite unobtrusively.
No one seems to mind if they notice me, but usually they either don't
notice, or just don't care. A lot depends on how, "harmless" you look, I
suppose. The presence of the tripod kind of implies that you are really
taking pictures of something fixed in the background, and are only waiting
for the people to walk outside the frame of the picture, so a lot of people
don't realize that they are being photographed.......

[Martin Francis]

Post by Mike Henley
What do you and how do you do it?

I don't- I tried it with my Mju II the other day but in trying to be
circumspect ended up with a lopsided shot. I was on the receiving end today,
however; a couple of students at my uni whom I didn't know were watching me,
one with a Canon camcorder and the other with what appeared to be a close
relative to the Dimage XT. I didn't object (although I gave them a long,
hard stare to let them know they'd been spotted) but was acutely aware of
what I was doing and what I had been doing; for example, i'd just been
eating a baguette and i'm sure it wasn't a pretty sight.

But as a photographer I understand why they were filming/shooting and
knew better than to object. I applaud their bravery too; i'm not a pretty
guy, and those lenses must've come under a lot of pressure...

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Mike Henley
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?
What do you and how do you do it?

Just take pictures and don't ask. Smile AFTER you shoot.

[William D. Tallman]

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Mike Henley
I just realized that most images i'd take would involve people, unless
i photograph landscape, architecture, abstract.
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?
what happens to spontaneity then? do you have to hide your camera? is
it illegal? and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff? would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web? more important than legality though, is it rude?
What do you and how do you do it?

Just take pictures and don't ask. Smile AFTER you shoot.

Michael has the right of it here, I think.

If you shoot, smile at whoever is watching, and then move on, people are
likely to figure that what you're doing is legitimate and therefore not a
threat to them. Both the smile, and the moving on are important. Smiling
gives them to understand you are not uncomfortable about what you are
doing, and moving on removes any pressure to question you in any case.

On the other hand, if you're carrying a tripod over your shoulder and a bag
of gear as well, boldly setting up and doing the shot can also provide a
reason for not moving on immediately. Do the shot and look around for what
else might be good, which gives one the opportunity to get shots that
otherwise might be intrusive; you're already there in the open and people
can avoid you if they really don't want their picture taken.

In any case, if you catch anyone looking, a quick grin disarms them....

Bill Tallman

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Mike Henley
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?

I don't see anything wrong with that. People in public are fair game
for photographs.

Post by Mike Henley
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
what happens to spontaneity then?

It disappears.

Post by Mike Henley
do you have to hide your camera?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
is it illegal?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff?

Only if you intend to use their pictures in advertising or for other
clearly commercial purposes.

Post by Mike Henley
would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web?

Not in the United States, if the picture is only being displayed for
editorial or informational purposes.

Post by Mike Henley
more important than legality though, is it rude?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
What do you and how do you do it?

I shoot street scenes and if they are interesting I put them in my
gallery.

[Joseph Meehan]

Mxsmanic wrote:
..

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web?

Not in the United States, if the picture is only being displayed for
editorial or informational purposes.

Usually true, but there are some exceptions in the US and other
countries. Consult a local legal professional for serious advice if you are
really concerned. However for the most part Mx is correct.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
more important than legality though, is it rude?

No.

I would give that a maybe. Just my opinion. Being rude is a matter of
opinion and unless you ask, you don't know if the person you are
photographing considers it rude.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Joseph Meehan
Consult a local legal professional for serious advice if you are
really concerned.

Consult a legal professional if you're rich and want to throw money out
the window. In the real world, if you're stuck with litigation, the
outcome is a roll of the dice, and no lawyer will be able to predict how
it will go in advance. The only safe advice is to take no pictures at
all. If you choose to take pictures, no lawyer can guarantee that you
won't be sued and lose.

[The Dave©]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Joseph Meehan
Consult a local legal professional for serious advice if you are
really concerned.

Consult a legal professional if you're rich and want to throw money
out the window. In the real world, if you're stuck with litigation,
the outcome is a roll of the dice, and no lawyer will be able to
predict how it will go in advance. The only safe advice is to take
no pictures at all. If you choose to take pictures, no lawyer can
guarantee that you won't be sued and lose.

Photographic abstinence.

[Joseph Meehan]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Joseph Meehan
Consult a local legal professional for serious advice if you are
really concerned.

Consult a legal professional if you're rich and want to throw money
out the window. In the real world, if you're stuck with litigation,
the outcome is a roll of the dice, and no lawyer will be able to
predict how it will go in advance. The only safe advice is to take
no pictures at all. If you choose to take pictures, no lawyer can
guarantee that you won't be sued and lose.

In other words, you would rather be ignorant than informed. To abstain
rather then make a prudent informed choice.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Joseph Meehan
In other words, you would rather be ignorant than informed.

I already know more than many non-specialist lawyers do, because I read
a lot about the topic and they do not. Lawyers always err on the side
of caution, and the only truly safe way in photography is to not take
any photographs at all. If you do take photographs, in today's world,
no amount of model releases or precedents will fully protect you. There
just aren't many rules in the world of image rights and (to a much
lesser extent) in IP in general.

Post by Joseph Meehan
To abstain rather then make a prudent informed choice.

I never said that I abstain.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Joseph Meehan
..

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web?

Not in the United States, if the picture is only being displayed for
editorial or informational purposes.

Usually true, but there are some exceptions in the US and other
countries. Consult a local legal professional for serious advice if you are
really concerned. However for the most part Mx is correct.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
more important than legality though, is it rude?

No.

I would give that a maybe. Just my opinion. Being rude is a matter of
opinion and unless you ask, you don't know if the person you are
photographing considers it rude.

Taking photographs discreetly and as unobtrusively as possible is not
rude. Being obnoxious about it can be.

[Joseph Meehan]

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Joseph Meehan
..

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web?

Not in the United States, if the picture is only being displayed for
editorial or informational purposes.

Usually true, but there are some exceptions in the US and other
countries. Consult a local legal professional for serious advice if
you are really concerned. However for the most part Mx is correct.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
more important than legality though, is it rude?

No.

I would give that a maybe. Just my opinion. Being rude is a
matter of opinion and unless you ask, you don't know if the person
you are photographing considers it rude.

Taking photographs discreetly and as unobtrusively as possible is not
rude. Being obnoxious about it can be.

Agreed.

[Michael Scarpitti]

Post by Joseph Meehan

Post by Michael Scarpitti

Post by Joseph Meehan
I would give that a maybe. Just my opinion. Being rude is a
matter of opinion and unless you ask, you don't know if the person
you are photographing considers it rude.

Taking photographs discreetly and as unobtrusively as possible is not
rude. Being obnoxious about it can be.

Agreed.

On the other hand, about 20 years ago, when I had become fed up with
photography, I was playing tennis when a photographer for the local
daily paper started taking some photos of me. I yelled at him and
chased him away.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
On the other hand, about 20 years ago, when I had become fed up with
photography, I was playing tennis when a photographer for the local
daily paper started taking some photos of me. I yelled at him and
chased him away.

Why?

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Scarpitti
Taking photographs discreetly and as unobtrusively as possible is not
rude. Being obnoxious about it can be.

One might argue that being discreet and unobtrusive is spying.

[William D. Tallman]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Scarpitti
Taking photographs discreetly and as unobtrusively as possible is not
rude. Being obnoxious about it can be.

One might argue that being discreet and unobtrusive is spying.

Yeah, I think so...

One's actions in public are evaluated by observers according to very
efficient methods: Does it look like a threat? If so, pay attention. If
not, let it be. Anything that is done right out in the open is unlikely to
be deemed a threat, unless the action is deliberately and overtly so.

So there's a median are of behavior between discrete and unobtrusive, and
rude and obnoxious. All you have to do is do it like you were a pro doing
business, getting shots that must be legitimate, etc. Then treat the
people around you courteously, just as you normally would. If you attract
attention, be courteous and accommodating, but don't linger unnecessarily.

Lingering would risk being obnoxious, I think.

Bill Tallman

[street shooter]

Post by William D. Tallman

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Scarpitti
Taking photographs discreetly and as unobtrusively as possible is not
rude. Being obnoxious about it can be.

One might argue that being discreet and unobtrusive is spying.

Yeah, I think so...
One's actions in public are evaluated by observers according to very
efficient methods: Does it look like a threat? If so, pay attention. If
not, let it be. Anything that is done right out in the open is unlikely to
be deemed a threat, unless the action is deliberately and overtly so.
So there's a median are of behavior between discrete and unobtrusive, and
rude and obnoxious. All you have to do is do it like you were a pro doing
business, getting shots that must be legitimate, etc. Then treat the
people around you courteously, just as you normally would. If you attract
attention, be courteous and accommodating, but don't linger unnecessarily.
Lingering would risk being obnoxious, I think.
Bill Tallman

I agree, and you make your point effectively. I think a big
misconception about candid/street photography is that the photographer
must be invisible. I think that leads to novice street photographers
imparting a sneaky countenance. Go about your business, take your
photos. If someone really does not wish to be photographed they will
let you know, and that person usually won't need to say a word. My
opinion regarding street photography is that the street is the arena
and everyone, including the photographer, is a player. Present
youself as one of the crowd, not as an outsider looking in. Of
course, always be aware of your surroundings.

Michael

[Ty D]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Henley
Well, there is street photography, which somewhat interests me as i
like peoplewatching. I wouldn't invade someone's privacy and i
wouldn't put a telescopic lens on a camera and photograph them in
their house, but what about people you see on a Saturday in the town
square while you drink your coffee and peopelwatch?

I don't see anything wrong with that. People in public are fair game
for photographs.

Post by Mike Henley
Do you have to ask each one if they mind you taking their picture?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
what happens to spontaneity then?

It disappears.

Post by Mike Henley
do you have to hide your camera?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
is it illegal?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
and what's that "release" thing? do i need to get them to
sign stuff?

Only if you intend to use their pictures in advertising or for other
clearly commercial purposes.

Post by Mike Henley
would it be illegal to put someone's picture, taken on a
street, on the web?

Not in the United States, if the picture is only being displayed for
editorial or informational purposes.

Post by Mike Henley
more important than legality though, is it rude?

No.

Post by Mike Henley
What do you and how do you do it?

I shoot street scenes and if they are interesting I put them in my
gallery.

just because something is legal does not mean it is not rude.

Ty

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Ty D
just because something is legal does not mean it is not rude.

Just because someone thinks something is rude doesn't make it so.

It's rude for police officers to arrest suspects, but they do it anyway.

[billfrogg]

And it is rude for dear mixy to keep on ranting all over the usenet,
but he does it anyway. billfrogg

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Ty D
just because something is legal does not mean it is not rude.

Just because someone thinks something is rude doesn't make it so.
It's rude for police officers to arrest suspects, but they do it anyway.